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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 breaking their logic all the way down to the studs.

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.

1. 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.

2. You cannot disprove the existence or prevalence of toxic masculinity. What would evidence of the absence of toxic masculinity even look like? Inevitably, you end up in a kafkatrap where any attempt to discredit the concept proves the concept i.e. circular logic.

3. The concept of toxic masculinity satisfies the emotional motivations of leftism/feminism. If your worldview demands a 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 breaking their logic all the way down to the studs.