/lit/ - Literature

I would like to take a moment to observe and unpack what I believe to be a completely typical online interaction with a "Marxist" (or, at the least, someone attempting to argue through a Marxist lens).

>>21066192
A tautological statement that presupposes correctness of an underlying assumption. (China is Marxist, Marxists are internationalists, internationalists are not nationalists, therefore, China is not nationalist).
>>21066207
Immediate ad hominem stating that the opponent has never read Marx. This is not meant to genuinely discredit (or even attack) the opponent- it is an attempt to re-enforce the arguer's faith in their own argument, as well as signal the obvious truth of their argument to any potential allies. After all, anyone who has read Marx agrees with me, because it is certainly true!
>>21066240
Immediate follow-up ad hominem. This concedes the previous point (okay, you actually have read Marx, but not the ~correct~ Marx, and certainly not with a fully functioning brain) while maintaining an attack on credibility. Again, this is meant more to shield the arguer and his (likely imaginary) allies from reflection on their arguments / assumptions. "Sexpat' is also used to signal that the arguee is the oppressor, immoral, dirty, etc.
>>21066283
The climax of any argument with a Marxist. A wall of text written 150 prior is dumped without context and without attempt to apply it in any way to the current discussion. The burden is on the arguee to extrapolate a framework from this text and apply it on their own to the context, magically reaching the same conclusion as the arguer.
>>21066313
Claim victory, abandon thread.

Arguing with Marxists is a truly fruitless endeavor. When I argue with a fascist, they will sometimes come up with a clever way to call me a Jew or a nigger. But a Marxist will never find an interesting and humorous way to resolve an argument. It will always be the same boring tropes. Don't argue with these people, just laugh at them.

>>18275488
basically this

>>15931676
This is you

>>12141406
>We can reduce human attributes to the brain
>Reducing the mechanism to its parts invalidates the mechanism's purpose
>Therefore, our consciousness and emotions do not matter
Name one (1) other situation in which this is a valid argument.

>>8682351
>humanity is good and any other opinion means you don't understand