You should study until it becomes coherent.
A lot of these people are reachable and it a is a huge failing to block and refuse to talk to them. I myself for the longest time had no idea what Marx said because the people who talked about his teachings were so off-putting. Often deliberately so.
It’s like being a southern Baptist and getting people to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by being gigantic assholes and thoroughly enjoying it.
If you were debating a flat earther would you try to find the coherence of their arguments? There’s nothing worth trying to understand here, it’s just drivel about a cherry picked list. Call the author a genocidal pedophile and move on.
That’s what I used to think about Marx.
It’s tons of fun to poke holes in them and make them argue against themselves. You start with their premises and prove them wrong, with their premises.
“Know thy enemy.”
– Sun Tzu
You don’t get it: you start with heir premises, then prove how they’re wrong, using their premises.
It’s incredible! You get them arguing against themselves then prove what they just did.
They get angry, then you make memes about them getting angry.
You did not think Marx was incoherent due to reading the Marxist arguments, but the vibes of the liberal zeitgeist. This is a different situation, since we’re analyzing the actual arguments and finding no substance.
Pretend they have substance. Use your theory of mind.
Put yourself in another person’s shoes and argue their points. Do it better than them.
Attorneys do it all the time.
Preaching political ideology to the lumpenproletariat is like teaching particle physics to a particle.
You go ahead and waste your time with that. And while you’re at it keep proclaiming how the Marx (did you mean Leftists?) are mean to you like that’s an actual problem anybody should care about.
You should study until it becomes coherent.
A lot of these people are reachable and it a is a huge failing to block and refuse to talk to them. I myself for the longest time had no idea what Marx said because the people who talked about his teachings were so off-putting. Often deliberately so. It’s like being a southern Baptist and getting people to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by being gigantic assholes and thoroughly enjoying it.
If you were debating a flat earther would you try to find the coherence of their arguments? There’s nothing worth trying to understand here, it’s just drivel about a cherry picked list. Call the author a genocidal pedophile and move on.
That’s what I used to think about Marx. It’s tons of fun to poke holes in them and make them argue against themselves. You start with their premises and prove them wrong, with their premises. “Know thy enemy.” – Sun Tzu
yeah and some people enjoy getting pooped on or whatever but it ain’t for me
You don’t get it: you start with heir premises, then prove how they’re wrong, using their premises. It’s incredible! You get them arguing against themselves then prove what they just did. They get angry, then you make memes about them getting angry.
You did not think Marx was incoherent due to reading the Marxist arguments, but the vibes of the liberal zeitgeist. This is a different situation, since we’re analyzing the actual arguments and finding no substance.
Pretend they have substance. Use your theory of mind.
Put yourself in another person’s shoes and argue their points. Do it better than them.
Attorneys do it all the time.
Once again asking how you would approach debating a flat earther then
Preaching political ideology to the lumpenproletariat is like teaching particle physics to a particle.
You go ahead and waste your time with that. And while you’re at it keep proclaiming how the Marx (did you mean Leftists?) are mean to you like that’s an actual problem anybody should care about.
Oh look, a classist bigot kulak.
KNEEL!