Sticking to one definition isn’t what’s happening here.
The original post already made clear which one is being discussed. The OP is talking about a specific ist-to-ism relationship; I’m talking about ists to their isms in general. Definitions of ‘capitalist’ unrelated to capitalism aren’t ‘other definitions’ I’m ignoring, they are just not part of this discourse at all. Pointing to them doesn’t show I’m picking one definition over another, it shows you’re arguing against things that were never raised.
Yes. In the context of the original post and my comment (the isms, or ideologies), exactly this.
The first definition is not relevant to capitalism, it is the same usage as their “artist to artism” point, but it is literal and not a confused fallacy trying to introduce an ism that does not exist. An artist is to art, as a capitalist is to capital. However, we’re talking about isms here, nothing they’ve tried to raise.
That should have been obvious from the original post; if not, by my comment; if not, especially as they typed out their artism argument; if not, certainly by the time they consulted the dictionary. Four whooshes.
You mean like artists are aligned with artism?
Words have different meanings, depending on the context they are used in.
Source
I think OPs argument is silly, but doesn’t defintion number 2 from your screenshots favor OP?
It does. I‘m trying to say that sticking to just one definition is a bit silly.
Sticking to one definition isn’t what’s happening here.
The original post already made clear which one is being discussed. The OP is talking about a specific ist-to-ism relationship; I’m talking about ists to their isms in general. Definitions of ‘capitalist’ unrelated to capitalism aren’t ‘other definitions’ I’m ignoring, they are just not part of this discourse at all. Pointing to them doesn’t show I’m picking one definition over another, it shows you’re arguing against things that were never raised.
Yes. In the context of the original post and my comment (the isms, or ideologies), exactly this.
The first definition is not relevant to capitalism, it is the same usage as their “artist to artism” point, but it is literal and not a confused fallacy trying to introduce an ism that does not exist. An artist is to art, as a capitalist is to capital. However, we’re talking about isms here, nothing they’ve tried to raise.
That should have been obvious from the original post; if not, by my comment; if not, especially as they typed out their artism argument; if not, certainly by the time they consulted the dictionary. Four whooshes.