Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" channel.

  1. ​ @willnitschke  Well exactly, like what?
    1
  2. ​ @willnitschke  Yes, such as?
    1
  3. Lol, here he is proving your point, his boyfriend even came to support him.
    1
  4.  @ExPwner  I love how salty you are now. You're wrong about all of those and I've proven it a dozen times over.
    1
  5. ​ @ExPwner  Aww, James is sad people don't like his strawman. Tell me James, is market socialism really socialism? Or do you think Richard Wolff isn't a socialist?
    1
  6.  @ExPwner  So you avoid the question because you can't answer. Again, is market socialism really socialism? Or do you think Richard Wolff isn't a socialist?
    1
  7. ​ @ExPwner  I reject your rejection. We can do this all week.
    1
  8.  @ExPwner  You don't get to say that I don't get to.
    1
  9.  @ExPwner  But I've fulfilled it. Again, market socialism proves your definition wrong.
    1
  10. ​ @ExPwner  Again, market socialism doesn't fit your definition, meaning you are wrong. Calling it the "actual" definition doesn't make it correct.
    1
  11. ​ @willnitschke  Typical zealot. When faced with an obvious contradiction, you ignore it.
    1
  12. ​ @ExPwner  How?
    1
  13. ​ @ExPwner  Yes it does. Market socialism has nothing to do with government or state control.
    1
  14. ​ @ExPwner  Yeah, it does, or are we switching definitions depending on mood now?
    1
  15.  @ExPwner  You also didn't give the full definition now did you? Let's take a look: "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" So, not all governments, just the ones that match the various egalitarian movements.
    1
  16.  @ExPwner  Sorry to rely on them finally fixing their definition. It doesn't call the theory egalitarian, it says that socialism is various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. According to this definition all of the socialist theories and movements are based on egalitarianism.
    1
  17.  @ExPwner  Right, it says they govern using a system based on egalitarianism. Why are you ignoring parts of the definition?
    1
  18. ​ @ExPwner  Because that's what the definition says. We are using dictionary definitions aren't we?
    1
  19. ​ @willnitschke  That's actually the opposite of egalitarianism. You really aren't too bright are you.
    1
  20. ​ @ExPwner  I'm just following the definition. According to that, if you don't implement egalitarianism then you didn't implement socialism. Even if you were trying to be socialist, it obviously isn't socialism, per the definition. You can't possibly be trying to claim that a government advocating for egalitarianism would fail to implement a single egalitarian policy, so that must still be socialism. If they implement no policies then they are not advocated. It's that simple. Or do works mean something different when you're cherry-picking?
    1
  21.  @ExPwner  It's right there in plain English James. Are you going to continue to argue that the Nazis were socialists, even though there is obviously nothing egalitarian about it?
    1
  22. ​ @ExPwner That doesn't fit the ddefinition.
    1
  23. ​ @willnitschke Did they though? Do you know what that word means? Hard to be egalitarian while genociding people.
    1
  24.  @ExPwner  It very clearly doesn't. Nazism is not an egalitarian political theory.
    1
  25. ​ @willnitschke So not egalitarian. Just making sure of that.
    1
  26. ​ @ExPwner Yeah it does. Here, let's look at the definition again: "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements" Seems pretty cut and dry.
    1
  27.  @willnitschke  Right, which is why I posted the definition. You forget your reading glasses there Will?
    1
  28. ​ @willnitschke Sounds like you just don't know what egalitarianism is, given the fact you tried to argue Nazi Germany was egalitarian lol.
    1
  29.  @ExPwner  But not egalitarian. The issue of only using half a definition. Also, they privatised.
    1
  30.  @ExPwner  "which is irrelevant because the part about government ownership is not dependent upon the theory." Yes it is. Let's read it again. "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" So it isn't even the government ownership or collective itself, but the egalitarian theories and movements that advocate for that. According to this defintion collectivism and governmental ownership are nothing to do with socialism. Socailism is egalitarian economic and political theories or movements that ADVOCATE for collective or government ownership and administration. "They did not privatize." But they did. They sold off government assets. Not the markets are directed, but the ownership of the individual companies was private. That private ownership continued after the war. That's a fact. So no, you debunked nothing. In fact TIK took a source that openly stated that the Nazis privatized their economy and edited it. The term was literally first used to describe the Nazi German economy.
    1
  31.  @ExPwner  I literally posted the definition kid.
    1
  32.  @ExPwner  3 lies from you. Yes, privatised was written first about Nazi Germany. Yes, the Nazis privatised. Yes, the definition does not mean what you are claiming. Not sure how you think advocating means government control.
    1
  33.  @ExPwner  Because it proved nothing of the sort. In fact the videos he responds to prove him wrong so fucking hard it's a joke. Still waiting for you to explain how the Nazis were holding egalitarian economic and political theories...while advocating for literal genocide.
    1
  34. ​ @ExPwner Sure he does James. This is just sad. You can't even get the definition of socialism straight, and even the dictionary disagrees with you now.
    1
  35. ​ @ExPwner Deflecting won't help you.
    1
  36.  @ExPwner  The primary sources that openly disagree with your conclusions and need to be modified just to claim you are correct? Those sources?
    1
  37. ​ @willnitschke  We have a very different idea of "held accountable" it would seem. Plenty of capitalists exploit workers and do some really shady health and environmental shit. The only ones holding them accountable are government.
    1
  38. ​ @willnitschke  More nonsense. Government holds businesses accountable. Voters hold government accountable. It's very simple really.
    1
  39. ​ @willnitschke  Of course it makes them accountable, that's literally the point of it. Judges are employed by the state. So thanks.
    1
  40. ​ @willnitschke  Total nonsense. We need to provide human rights for people and stop the exploitation of labour.
    1
  41.  @willnitschke  not understanding how democracy works just makes you look thick.
    1
  42.  @ExPwner  Wow, wrong twice, I'm shocked.
    1
  43. ​ @ExPwner  You're right, rule 1 James is wrong. I forget.
    1
  44. ​ @willnitschke  Oh look, the alt is coming in to say something stupid. Let me know why you hate human rights. Let me know when you research the democracy index.
    1
  45.  @willnitschke  Oof, you still don't know what taxes are. This is making you look stupid.
    1
  46.  @ExPwner  Aww, look a James, hiding behind big Willy. You gonna hold his pocket for good luck.
    1
  47.  @willnitschke  You can just admit to not know the underlying social understanding of taxation. It's amusing that Jimmy thinks that your profession would help you to understand the societal reasoning behind taxes, when in reality it just tells you how to pay them. It's like asking a guy on a piling rig how the piles are designed and expecting a solid answer. The reality of it is that your inability to support human rights, and your constant admissions on your lack of understanding of the necessity of government programs, shows that you do not in fact understand how taxes work. Can you pay them? Sure. Do you understand them? Not in a million years. Stick to drilling Will, design ain't for you.
    1
  48.  @willnitschke  Why do you imagine you speak for everyone? Delusions of grandure?
    1
  49.  @willnitschke  Wow, you really are just James projecting your abject failures aren't you. I reject your premise. Loaded questions aren't valid. You fail.
    1
  50. ​ @willnitschke  I reject your new premise. Loaded questions are still not valid. You fail again.
    1