You cannot quickly debunk marxist ideas, and this is a feature rather than a failing. Marxist ideas are nebulous, unfalsifiable, and emotionally satisfying; you can't pin them down, you can't disprove them, and you're working against "feelings" the whole way.
Take the example of toxic masculinity.
You cannot define it without also defining masculinity and deciding what qualifies as "toxic". Both of those concepts are massively complex and not a little subjective.
You cannot disprove the existence or prevalence of toxic masculinity. What would evidence of the non-existentence of toxic masculinity even look like? If it is impossible to falsify the hypothesis, then you are dealing with a kafkatrap where any attempt to discredit the concept proves the concept i.e. circular logic.
The concept of toxic masculinity satisfies the emotional motivations of leftism/feminism. If your worldview demands an oppressor, then you will embrace any idea that provides one for you. Separating your desire from your understanding isn't easy, and any hostile behavior will only trigger further emotional reasoning.
Whether these sorts of ideas were deliberately designed to function this way or were merely products of evolutionary selection within the far left spheres of academia, I cannot say. Truth be told, it doesn't matter. This is how their "arguments" work, and you cannot defeat those ideas without systematically tearing their logic all the way down to the studs.
Elaborating on my previous post: if you want to effectively challenge the idea of toxic masculinity, you need to challenge it on the three aforementioned fronts:
Definitions. Ask for fixed definitions of masculinity and toxic masculinity, and have her explain to you what qualifies something as toxic. Ask who decides these definitions, and why those people? What are their certifications, and how are those certificationa legitimate? Point out where the provided definitions are absurdly broad or reductive.
Falsifiability. Remind her that a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. If there exists no possibility of evidence that disproves the hypothesis, then it is not valid. Ask her what evidence would convince her that toxic masculinity is not the cause of a given problem. Is there an alternative explanation? Does she refuse to entertain it? Why?
Emotional reasoning. Subtly explore the notion that ideas like toxic masculinity are created by people with motivations other than raw intellectual curiosity. Suggest the possibility that an ideology couched in oppression is an ideology that requires an oppressor to function, and that adherence to such an ideology might cause people to latch on to questionable oppressor narratives because they flatter biases or fulfill desires. Basically, start questioning the sincerity of those who push these ideas.
You cannot quickly debunk marxist ideas, and this is a feature rather than a failing. Marxist ideas are nebulous, unfalsifiable, and emotionally satisfying; you can't pin them down, you can't disprove them, and you're working against "feelings" the whole way. Take the example of toxic masculinity.
Elaborating on my previous post: if you want to effectively challenge the idea of toxic masculinity, you need to challenge it on the three aforementioned fronts:
Definitions. Ask for fixed definitions of masculinity and toxic masculinity, and have her explain to you what qualifies something as toxic. Ask who decides these definitions, and why those people? What are their certifications, and how are those certificationa legitimate? Point out where the provided definitions are absurdly broad or reductive.
Falsifiability. Remind her that a valid hypothesis must be falsifiable. If there exists no possibility of evidence that disproves the hypothesis, then it is not valid. Ask her what evidence would convince her that toxic masculinity is not the cause of a given problem. Is there an alternative explanation? Does she refuse to entertain it? Why?
Emotional reasoning. Subtly explore the notion that ideas like toxic masculinity are created by people with motivations other than raw intellectual curiosity. Suggest the possibility that an ideology couched in oppression is an ideology that requires an oppressor to function, and that adherence to such an ideology might cause people to latch on to questionable oppressor narratives because they flatter biases or fulfill desires. Basically, start questioning the sincerity of those who push these ideas.
Very well put, great work :)