Stop telling people to "read a book"...

He does this because every genuine analysis of hierarchy would inevitably lead to class struggle, no matter how much mumbo-jumbo about the "spirit essence" he has flying arround.

And yeah, Bookchin wants to transcend class struggle. I don't want to point out how retarded this is. He probably just wanted to appeal to hippies and libs.

I know. It's to piss off the people who spam READ [author] who know theory but don't know how to talk to unread newbies. Like you.
No, it's not. The gripe OP has is that people say "Read Book" without context so nobody understands the relevance or gets a good reason to read that particular literature out of the mountains of leftist lit.
What do you even mean by this.

That's what I was doing (demonstrating) by not belaboring the point, keeping it short instead.

You wanna know what's really immature?
Going to a debate without even the most basic knowledge about the stuff that is being debated and yet having the absolute certainty that you know everything for sure.
So whatever some dumb Holla Forumsyp or just some plain normie come with the gommunism is le cultural margxism bullshit or something of the sorts, I'll tell the bitch ass nigga to go read a fucking book.

Read a book

What the fuck are you talking about? Bookchin is explicit in what they define as "hierarchy", and the notion that they said "it wasn't worth it" is bizarre and flagrantly false. Bookchin, and other writers in social ecology, are explicit that "hierarchy" refers to an institutionalised system of command and obedience.

"By hierarchy, I mean the cultural, traditiona, and psychological systems of obedience and command, not merely the economic and political systems to which the terns class and State most appropriately refer to…" - Ecology of Freedom, page 68

Like, actually read Bookchin's ideas before just talking about them and making it clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey maybe you should take your own advice and read the OP because this:
is not what OP is talking about.

So you rather lose the debate while adhering to the right-wing cliche of a leftist instead of actually trying to get your standpoint through

Better than read A book, but not by much.

How is this not Tumblr tier denial of the base/superstructure-spiral

I try not too. Not everybody has the time or inclination to read books on political theory. But the problem with trying to explain succinctly is that I'd run up to my own limits before the theory does. I might be wrong, and an idiot, so it's safer to refer to source material.

Read a book OP

read x and google bookchin are memes. Its a joke its not mean to actually convince anyone.

Please, just read a book or stop posting on this board.

You'll notice that's entirely unhelpful in identifying what is and is not hierarchy. Marx defines class, and as such we can identify classes based on material relations. Bookchin hasn't defined hierarchy and he admits as much.

libcom.org/files/Murray_Bookchin_The_Ecology_of_Freedom_1982.pdf

Page 4, bottom paragraph.

Bookchin thinks that the proletariat aren't even a thing because not everyone works in hard labor. Apparently service industry is not labor to him.

It doesn't hurt my feelings you retard. It's a fucking laughable non-argument which only extremely autistic people make and because I actually care about how Internet leftist culture looks like it infuriates me because it makes us look like assholes.

Bookchin doesn't deny the base-superstructure distinction. Dianat isn't some competing ideology offered as an alternative to Marx's materialist conception of history. Dianat is like an expansion pack to materialism. Bookchin fully acknowledged the existence of materialist dialectics, but it would be crudely materialist and reductionist to view ONLY these dialectics without also observing the dialectic of ideas (i.e. culture).

However, the reality is that the anthropological material that Marx and Engels incorporated into their ideas is LAUGHABLY outdated now. Classical Marxism incorporated conceptions of UNILINEAL EVOLUTION, which has been rejected by contemporary anthropologists as much as fixity of being has been rejected by evolutionary biologists. Hopelessly outdated, and transcended by newer and more sophisticated ideas. Specifically, within anthropology, unlineal evolutionism has been replaced with neo-evolutionism. This necessitates a re-evaluation of Marx and Engel's ideas, unless you are to cover your ears and pretend that 19th century anthropology qua Lewis Henry Morgan is not hilariously outdated. So-called "primitive communism" likely never existed. And hierarchies, as defined by Bookchin, objectively existed before the rise of "ancient society" and the emergence of class. This is basic anthropology.

"What, then, did I intend to emphasize with the concept of hierarchy? In "The Ecology of Freedom" and other works I tried to enlarge and broaden existing concepts of social oppression. I tried to indicate that hierarchies preceded the emergence of classes, indeed that hierarchy was one of the major sources of class society. Social classes emerged out of hierarchies, as well as out of the division of labor, as Marx claimed. The chiefdom of a simple tribal society, for example, was a potential hierarchy, usually an emerging one. The chief, who was almost invariably male, at first appeared as the ablest and/or wisest individual in the tribe, an adviser rather than a leader, who by degrees became a dominating figure…" - Bookchin, "Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left", page 272

Yeah, that's just a gross misinterpretation of Marx. Go tell this to a haircutter who works for a minimum wage.

Bookchin was also not an academic and scientific and scholastic approach was alien to him. He worked as a steel worker and got indoctrinated by Trots. I'd really recommend to take this guy too seriously. You can extract some nice ideas here and there for revolutionary praxis but don't bother with the rest.

*not to take

this is liberalism

"What, then, did I intend to emphasize with the concept of hierarchy? In "The Ecology of Freedom" and other works I tried to enlarge and broaden existing concepts of social oppression. I tried to indicate that hierarchies preceded the emergence of classes, indeed that hierarchy was one of the major sources of class society. Social classes emerged out of hierarchies, as well as out of the division of labor, as Marx claimed. The chiefdom of a simple tribal society, for example, was a potential hierarchy, usually an emerging one. The chief, who was almost invariably male, at first appeared as the ablest and/or wisest individual in the tribe, an adviser rather than a leader, who by degrees became a dominating figure…" - Bookchin, "Anarchism, Marxism, and the Future of the Left", page 272
Meaningless to try to solve a "problem" that he can't even formally define. A teacher student relationship is hierarchical. Should that be done away with? What about parent and child? Or on the battlefield, with leaders and subordinates? It would appear that Bookchin didn't even think about it for five fucking minutes. What a fucking retard.

Read a book transnigger.

I know, bro, but people seem to think Bookchin is cool for some stupid reason. They don't even seem to understand that nothing he says means shit.

If you think leftist internet culture doesn't merit concern, by all means enjoy /r/socialism.

this is an intentional misrepresentation of what Bookchin said

kill your self damn cunt

Then do tell me what he meant. You seem to be willing to defend a class colaborationist faggot that doesn't even understand the thing he's complaining about.

you want me to go to an ill read overly nice liberal shithole because I dont think we need to give a fuck about how hurt people are we they get told to read relevant literature?

If you cant educate yourself on the topic at hand then you shouldnt be treated as an equal when you try to debate on it

Look, just stop being a retard and actually read Bookchin. I get that *autistic screeching* is easier than doing even an introductory study of Bookchin's ideas, but you look fucking stupid with your seeming denseness and inability to grasp basic concepts that Bookchin clearly laid out.

Mind you there ARE problems in Bookchin's work (which have been addressed by later Communalists), but it isn't his ability to "formally define" anything. Jesus christ you are stupid.

Leftists are incapable of thinking for themselves and just regurgitate tomes from the 19th century.

Then define hierarchy formally, retard. How do you expect people to argue about something when you cannot even define what they're arguing about? If that isn't hierarchy, then what is? Why is it that your argument boils down to
Fucking idiot.

ftfy

fug

Hierarchy is an institutionalised system of command and obedience, you illiterate autist. A parent-child relationship is biological, not institutional.

As opposed to fascists that can also not think for themselves, but think spouting memes is much better.

Because regurgitating blogposts and infographs is the epithome of free thinking, right?

Nobody rejects the study of history. Historical Materialism was a broad, linear approach to history which was en vogue during the 19th century up until the 20s which got us a "circular view" of history like Spengler and Heidegger which is autistic as well. Historical Materialism can be a broad framework for analysing historical events and ideology but it doesn't claim to be empirically evident in terms of the details. However, Bookchins conclusions are just wrong. Just because Historical Materialism isn't the end of historical philosophy doesn't mean that the opposite is true. And yes, in terms of praxis DiaMat and DiaNat are competing ideologies. There is a market and private property after all in Rojava, is there not?

I'd like to see an example for this claim. Maybe he's right about the beginning of history during the Neolithic Revolution - you know, like a shaman becoming a priest once humans started settling down. But once classes have been established, DiaMat is in motion and pretty much every historical event can be reduced to the base changing, and not the superstructure. It was the citizens of Paris who stormed the Bastille, not some enlightened noble.

You may criticize Marx for claiming there was some sort of prehistoric communism, fine. But don't pretend that this is even the core point of his philosohy, it is not.

Parenting is a cultural norm, not a biological one. You can be a parent to children that aren't your own, and I also brought up teachers as well as soldiers on a battlefield. You cannot seem to define hierarchy so that I myself can spot such relationships, and you cannot say why hierarchy is inherently a bad thing. Sometimes commands should be obeyed. If a city must be evacuated, for example Chernobyl, would it be proper to have no one obey the command to evacuate? What if a child wants to leave but a parent wants to stay? How is that not another relationship of command and obedience? You see, Bookchin never attempts to answer with a formal definition because it would fail and he'd look like an idiot. Luckily for us, we can see he's an idiot without him even attempting a definition.

telling people to read a book is ableist, what about blind people?

You keep claiming there is no definition given, despite being repeatedly spoonfed one. So at this point I'm going to assume that you're either retarded and incapable of thought, or trolling. For your sake, I'm leaning towards the latter.

It's not really about feelings. It's a matter of effective communication. Leftist literature is an ocean of content, and when newbies hear people telling them to read this or that from all angles, it all blends together. If you want "READ [book]" to mean something more than "I'm better read than you" it should come with context that makes the work relevant. Leftism isn't an exercise in autofellatio. If it's about your ego then by all means keep on keeping on. If you want to facilitate newbies reading (rather than using the premise to puff yourself up) then you should put a little effort into recommendations. That's all.

And I keep telling you that is no definition at all. It doesn't do what a definition should do, which is spot systems that fit that definition. If the only definition is command and obedience, then parenting is one of these, and so is that of teachers, and of soldiers, as well as law enforcement. If we are to go by that definition, then hierarchy not only can't be eliminated, but shouldn't be. Do you see why you look like a fucking idiot for thinking Bookchin is at all coherent?

No, it's just that your arguments suck and you have no formal definition of your shit. Bookchin himself said so. Your definition does not help anyone spot hierarchy as you want it to be and means whatever you apparently want it to mean at any given time.

read some books kiddo
i suggest something simple like "See Spot Run"

Read A Book

Typical conversation with the average American.

There's no point trying to educate average people, never has been. Simply win the big fights & the masses will either switch to your side or meekly protest you (but accomplish nothing).

Thank you OP, this is what some turbofaggots here really need to here.

Why are you so opposed to reading books? Do you also get triggered when somebody tells you to go and eat a delicious burger?

I'm not opposed to reading books, how fucking hard can you even strawman

If you are not opposed to reading books then why do you dislike it when someone suggests you read a book?

Because when someone makes an argument you should respond in kind. Saying read x, just shuts down the conversation until that person can read that book and tell you why it's bullshit, at which point you can just spout "hurr read x", like a fucking idiot.

It doesn't shut down conversation or encourages you to read material which cannot be easily summarized

Not everything in life is going to be fast food, sometimes you have to take time to actually cook a meal.

Sometimes you actually have to take time to read and research the topic you're speaking on more thoroughkly, so you can speak on authority next time you're able.

It's not that hard, nobody is insiulting you. They're pointing you in the direction of what can answer your question.

No, If you make an argument then you can expect any response, including no response. Sometimes you will get an argument in kind, and sometimes a shitpost or a joke. If you don't like the responses you're getting you can go away or change your arguments.

Not him, but what he is critizicing is the tone emanating from "Read a book" posts. You may have argued the same points a lot of time before and gettired of repeating it, but the other guy can very well a genuine newfaggot who never got exposed to your previously made point.
You say to the guy read a book to the other guy who might assume you're avoiding a direct answer and leve the impression you have no argument which fit the smug assholery he associate with leftism, making him disregarding it even further.
In the absolute, people shouldn' argue something they know nothing about and make researches about him beforehand.
Unfotunately it is fairly rare attitude.
So from here will you: Tell him to get educated because he's in the wrong for letting his feeling dictate his actions?
Or try to get trough his mind if you intent to convince either him or a bystander?

Yes this is totally feeling managment.

If you cannot summarize it within the context of this board, then you don't know what you're talking about. It's that simple. I don't know any idea that can't be generally conveyed like this. There is minutia and other things, but it can be done. If you cannot do this, you are either spouting bullshit, or you don't know the idea you are defending.

When you fail to respond with an argument, it's admission that you are either wrong, or that you need to read more. Saying read x is not an argument and it never will be.

Stop telling people to "check your muh privilege." It's a condescending and quite immature response in a debate which will not make you very likeable.

No but seriously, people have to eventually read some motherfucking books. The reason most posters accustomed to 4chan just want some bullet points of information is because their minds have been double-deepfucked by the internet, frying all of our attention spans. This is not something to be ashamed of or worried about. It's just a pain and a condition you have to deal with in. It's something you have to get around in order to get something you want (a restored attention span, focus, a complete picture of a theory, better ability to articulate your views etc).

4chan, reddit and twitter are probably the fastest ways to fuck your attention span with all those itty bitty bullet points of data feeding your information addiction.

People can slowly unfuck their minds by reading articles, then by reading easy books in a quiet place, then by reading some easy Left-wing books like Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Then do whatever the hell you want to do.

But really, read a fucking book tho

If somebody tells you to read a book with nothing else to add, and you need to keep the discussion going just call it out as the non-argument it is.

Instead of… what? Having to deal with the smug ignorance, that turns into condescending tries of appeasement and finally bitter, self-righteous spite of people that has no fucking idea of what the difference between personal and private property is, just to end up with a 'well, that may work in a perfect world' at the end of the ordeal? It's a Sisyphean task

No, I much rather point the problems in the argument and tell them to read a fucking book instead of trying to argue from ignorance with me.

This is untrue and you posting it tells me you're both bad at arguing and don't do it often.

I know it's a lot of meming in this thread but the OP makes a valid point which I agree with and always try to practice.

Really engaging with people is difficult and tiring, and explanation is hard. No one should deny that it's difficult to do but it needs to be done.

There are rhetorical techniques that can make the type of people you talk about amenable to the points you're trying to make. It's not a question of dumbing it down, it's a question of effectively deploying language. I don't talk to a bus driver the same as I do to an academic (unless the bus driver is academically minded, which isn't uncommon), so your strawman debate partner isn't valid usually. Even when he is you have to realize that ideas once planted sometimes don't bloom until later. Even if you face the slanderous reaction you describe, it's worth it because often that type of reaction is just to save face and you've still introduced your interlocutor to the ideas you believe are valid.

Then of course there's the reality of the fact that even if convincing your opponent is impossible you still argue for the silent audience.

Nathan J. Robinson wrote a good article about this in Current Affairs.

currentaffairs.org/2017/03/debate-versus-persuasion

It's also worth watching Jean-Luc Melenchon speak, for the francophones here. His combination of passion, genial humour, and a deep intellectual grounding in the worldview he espouses is what we should all aspire to in our argumentation.

Personality and verve matters, and persuasion is very important. It should not be ignored.

You can suggest a book for deeper reading after you address their questions and give a summary of the argument it contains. Taking that approach has a far greater chance of actually convincing them to read the book then just telling them to read it.

I give people a reason to read the book I'm telling them to read before I tell them to read the fucking bread book

Nice trips, and that's the right way to head.

To elaborate a little on the importance of language in persuasion, you should never use the imperative unless you know the command will harmonize with the person's beliefs or desires.

Honestly, I approached Bookchin with an open mind, assuming that there must be some kernel of correctness to his work to inspire such dedicated shilling.

He certainly starts off strong, he probes at a lot of the blind spots in Marxist/anarchist thought quite incisively.

The problem (similar to the leftcoms) comes when its time to put away the criticism and make your own position clear. It's at that point that the full stupidity of Bookchin-thought flourishes.

As soon as it comes time to talk about his own proposals, he immediately and violently throws materialism under the bus. From this fundamental mistake, all of his subsequent prescriptions amount to a declaration that 'stuff would be great if everyone just decided to change their minds tomorrow and run the world perfectly, instead of shittily, like they do now' - in other words, pure utopianism.

Now, I am someone who thinks that charges of utopianism are thrown around too easily on the left, especially by leftcoms. I think there's a difference between utopianism and a practical prefigurative political program. As an aside, I happen to think that nobody on the left has bothered to come up with such a program in the entire history of our movement, and that the failure to do so is one of the key causes of our repeated failures through history. Nonetheless, I do not discount the possibility of such a program's development.

Having said all of that, I find that Bookchin makes a point of falling on the wrong side of that divide. His prescriptions are utopianism of the worst, most useless kind. He goes to great lengths to describe what his ideal society would look like, but provides no clear practical reason why humanity would uproot the entire existing system of social organisation to build it. The three reasons does provide are one of a) useless moralism like 'it would overcome hierarchy' [poorly defined of course, and his system doesn't necessarily do so in any case], b) potential aversion of future disaster [has never motivated change in the past, why do we expect it to do so in future?], or c) an assertion that his system is 'better' [by any number of metrics, none of which provide enough incentive to totally upend society as it is currently configured].

Worst of all, key parts of his system remain unspecified. How should large-scale production be co-ordinated between communes? Do we jettison all concept of society-wide improvements in resource efficiency in order to pursue our fetishised localism? What prevents competition or economic domination of locally resource-poor communities by resource-rich ones? How is military defense to be co-ordinated, considering that many semi-self-sufficient, dispersed communities would be a perfect target for conquest by a centralised aggressor state? Who builds the fucking roads? That's just the beginning. You could fill a book with basic, practical questions like this.

If you're going to blueprint the future society, you best come correct.

In conclusion I will simply say that the 'google Bookchin' meme, while successful at raising awareness, suffers from the same problem as its immediate ancestor, the 'google Ron Paul' meme: The person you want us to look up has terrible fucking ideas.

Read a book faggot.

If that's the level of political discourse you have, then you're fucking retarded. No wonder you object on reading books.

I'm not here to coddle retards. Read a fucking book.

Debates are about persuasion, not understanding.

What a mistake.

He never picks up serious criticism. Even if you are lucky and he tries addressing you in a few sentences he responds to what he wants to and not to what is actually written. He's a sham.

Earlier he started a thread to complain that he got BTFO ITT and blamed it on Holla Forums.

Also, this is a board that is baited and trolled almost constantly. You can hardly blame us for not wanting to write a treatise for every dickhead that comes along when the information they're asking for is freely available online if they'd put in at least some minimum amount of effort.

You can't describe the entirety of theoretical physics in one post, but you certainly can respond to criticism of it if you are sufficiently knowledgeable in the field.

And since you're here, you'd better know enough about your ideology to respond to criticism from your opposition. If you find yourself at a point where you personally cannot come up with a decent counter, then maybe it's time for YOU to do some reading.

Why the fuck should we explain basic concepts a million times when 99% of the people we're responding to are baiting fuckheads that won't even read the post except maybe to skim it for some pedantic gotcha bullshit?

Prove to us that you're actually interested first, because the vast majority of you aren't.

You are making assumptions about your opposition. You assert that the only way they could disagree with you is their own lack of interest. How exactly does one "prove" to you that they're genuinely interested? You can't see them reading your material, you can't read their minds, have you ever considered that perhaps it's you that can't bring yourself to argue in good faith?

If they don't understand basic concepts, they're probably not arguing in good faith.

And this isn't me I'm talking about. I'll admit I gave up taking shitposters seriously years ago. It's me reading the posts of the fucks that actually try and take the time to write thoughtful posts only to get some shitpost meme response. I haven't seen much evidence that taking low information shitposters seriously yields much more that frustration on the part of the people trying toengage with them.

Nigga read a book

You could say that people could get at least lengthy quotations for the full context and then refer for further information to that text, but if you say "i'm just not gonna read it", why'd anyone bother writing out arguments themself if you'll just as well continue to ignore them?

what big fights have socialists or even leftists won recently?

I'm no expert, but I believe this would be done or at least coordinated by the confederations. AFAIK, this is discusses in "The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism" by Janet Biehl.

What an original argument, never heard this one before. You idealists got the shit kicked out of you for an entire thread and you still can't shut up.

Neither Marx nor Engels would deny this "basic anthropology", seeing as they had to defend themselves against the vulgar conception that communism treats all people as homogeneously equal.

Bookchin never read Engels let alone Marx if he thought this wasn't covered – and if he did, he isn't addressing the specific arguments made by them, which is the same as ignoring them. Oddly enough, exactly what was done in the Communalism vs Communism thread, over and over. You Bookchinites are ideologues of the worst kind. Thankfully your idiocy is plain to see.

You posting this tells me you haven't argued with many, average americans before.

I have this maxim on myself where if i can't show how the adversary's argument is wrong ,then it isn't. It forces me to be more creative and sharp.

Is anonymous imageboard, why care about image.

The Ricci curvature tensor is a jewish lie, prove me wrong.

Or maybe they are ignorant, or maybe they have criticism of those concepts.

I would first ask you what specifically you find wrong with that topic. If you cannot make concrete arguments, then I can assume you're not arguing in good faith. Saying x is a lie, is the same as saying read x to see why you're wrong. Don't you see how lazy that is? It's literally, go look up why you are wrong. Do my job for me. It's the laziest for of argumentation.

Another fucking meta thread.

This is something Holla Forums gotcha dialogue is very guilty of. It's clear from the post that I either don't know anything about the Ricci curvature tensor, or at least haven't addressed anything actually dealing with it. I've implictly suggested an argument, but didn't make one
Exactly.
If someone lacks so much background on the topic as to not understand what it is, how it relates to the theory, the predictions it makes, or what empirical evidence can support/oppose it, it's perfectly valid to point out that they totally lack the background to understand the matter at hand.

You have to first understand a concept to criticize it. Otherwise, you're criticizing a different concept altogether which you only mistake for the concept itself.
Remaining knowingly ignorant of these basic concepts IS arguing in bad faith, user. When someone insistently constructs their critique of a concept on the largely undisciplined manipulation of their own misunderstanding of the concept, and ignores the anons here readily supplying explanations of the genuine concept (i.e. the concept actually used in Leftist theory,) they're not arguing in good faith, but interested in being right.
youtube.com/watch?v=DWC_m-eIWO0&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7&index=2

Again with pointing the finger at your opposition. You see a handful of idiots and conclude that's the entirety of Holla Forums. It would be like taking a look at a community college art class and concluding that's what Holla Forums consists of.

And you making that statement was you strawmanning someone from Holla Forums.
Are you literally ignorant to your own ignorance here?

Yes, but this isn't what OP is complaining about, and second the first thing you should answer to that isn't read a book. It's "what specifically do you have a problem with relating to x?"

True, but again, this isn't what we are arguing about. It's when someone points out a legitimate criticism of x philosophy and is told to go read a book. This happens on Bookchin and Feminist threads qutie often.

And you can point that out. If someone makes an erroneous criticism, it's your job to tell them why. If you can't, then not only that person, but the people watching the debate will assume you don't know how to answer.

If you think everyone needs to read the whole of Capital before they can criticize Marxist ideas, then you can see why nobody takes you seriously. Many of those ideas can be boiled down to a few major foundations. It is from here that you can make arguments, and those that know can argue the minutiae.

Again, if you cannot point out why such erroneous criticism are indeed erroneous, then you are the ignorant one too. "Read a book" is not and will never be an adequate response to an argument.

You mean like reading a PDF?

...

The problem is that you dismiss someone's legitimate arguments all the time like this.

It would seem, and he gets BTFO often.

how to not get told

how to get told

Yes.
No, no I didn't. I said it's typical and characteristic of Holla Forums, not that it's the entirety of Holla Forums.
If you can find an art class anywhere that's actually full of leftists, and not bourgeois liberal idpolers, maybe.
You act like it's some vanishingly small clique of rogue posters who behave this way, when really it's the overwhelming majority of Holla Forums posts on this board.
I think it's a valid, illustrative analogy. Would you care to explain why you think it's not?

I already do these every thread. I don't use "read a book" at all, except perhaps when it provides an interesting extension of the ideas I've discussed, such as Frederick Douglass' Narrative for the "class structure generates subjective, identity based discrimination" point, or a relevant source/historical context I feel like acknowledging.
Nobody thinks this.
Yes, they can. You can even rederive the entire theory from the key concepts and foundations. Many people do that to varying degrees before they ever start reading. You can understand the theory well enough to argue generally about it by grasping these concepts, and deepen your understanding through almost any good-faith argument you have on the matter.
I'm not saying it's necessarily your "duty" to read the background works or even look up these concepts on your own if you want to post here, but when we're dealing with people who get concepts explained directly to them over and over, and completely ignore them in favor of their own invented versions of those concepts, and proceed to argue solely through the use of their own misunderstanding, and insist they've won every time someone tells them they've misunderstood and clarifies, you can't really call that our problem anymore.

I wouldn't go that far. It's more so an admission that they don't want to keep arguing the same bullshit/don't want to expend the effort needed to flesh out an argument.

Of course, it's still lazy and immature, and to your opponent it certainly looks the way you described.

You're probably right op but also it's a fucking Chan, aka read a book faggot

I am in disagreement that your post is characteristic of Holla Forums posts here. can you point to me any post that is simply "x is a jewish lie?" There are a few cheeky cunts out there who make shitty 1 liners for giggles (I personally have come here bringing toothbrush jokes in the past) but they are the minority of people who have criticism of your ideology.

Also, have you considered that maybe many of these seemingly stupid statements are simply openings to the argument? It's more eye catching when your OP is 1 or 2 sentences and he could be waiting for someone interested in having the discussion to ask "why do you think this way?"

When you simply respond with "read a book," it makes you look like a disingenuous prick.

Well, no, here's what the LTV actually is
>wow leftcucks are using a definitional and theoretical framework in which my example doesn't refute the LTV, and this means they know I'm right!

They routinely describe communism as a "jewish ideology" and allege that most bolsheviks were jewish. They do this as an ad hom, to undermine the credibility of the theory itself without making an argument against it on its own merits. They don't address why jewishness or the lack thereof is relevant to the truth of a theory of how the world works in the first place.
I never do, read the post you replied to.
Or is it "disingenuous" to say that?

How do you know?

who? can you point a post to me on this board which matches the characteristics you describe?
what I'm taking from that is you do the same thing with "capitalists" that they do with Jews. Man, you sure are more intellectually honest than those select people you chose to include in that screencap

Then what are we arguing about? The whole point of this threadis that "read a book" is not a valid response.

Not necessarily "valid," but reasonable. Nobody thinks to themselves "I'm an ignorant shit who doesn't understand the thing I'm criticizing." Unless they're here to crack toothbrush jokes, they are probably under the impression that their arguments are, in fact, valid. And when you don't address them YOU look like the ignorant shit.

Check cap
No, I'm not going to sift through the huge amount of relevant, quality posts on this board to search for shitposts made by Holla Forumsacks in currently existing threads over the past few days which haven't been deleted. Can you give me any real reason why what I already gave you isn't a valid example?

Perception=/=reality. Just because they think there's something to it doesn't mean there actually is. When somebody assumes their objection is "reasonable" from the get-go and isn't open to re-examining that assumption, they've closed themselves off from any real debate. It takes a kind of humility, self-awareness, and objective detachment to actually search for truth, and "read a book" really just pokes fun at people who abjectly lack any of this.
They get addressed. Literally every time.
You tell me, genius.

Kek.
Not necessarily "valid," but reasonable.

Capitalists respond to obvious economic incentives, as a means of satisfying needs they share with all humans, and individually act in their own rational self-interest towards these incentives. Those who do not are more likely to be out-competed by others and fall out of the bourgeoisie, and so the bourgeoisie comes to consist largely of those who do pursue rational self-interest. The whole bourgeoisie shares certain interests in kind, such as private ownership of the productive forces, commodification of labor, and so on, and so organizes in the form of states to protect and defend these interests. Their rivalries and conflicting interests are aggregated, mediated and ultimately decided through states as well, owing to efficient use of power. GM doesn't patrol Detroit with armed goons like the Narco-state because it is less efficient and so less profitable to further their interests in this way than through policy.
Jews supposedly want to destroy western civilization because it's in their blood, and something something spooky jew magic. Why they don't address or account for any conceivable cases where individual jews have a self-interest counter to this goal, I'll never know.

Not sure why you chose to put scare quotes around the word "capitalists," unless you think it's meant to refer to people who ideologically support capitalism rather than private owners of the means of production who own a sufficiently large share as to subsist exclusively off the labor of others without needing to sell their own labor power. In which case, consider it explained to you.

I did. In fact, I responded to your posting of it.
When you respond to "da joos" with "da boorjwazi" you shouldn't be surprised when a mass of non arguments continues to be a mass of non arguments.
If the problem really were as ubiquitous as you make it seem, you wouldn't have to do any sifting,
And that's why we're discussing this rather than posting memes

Maybe you should have posted this in that thread instead of "le ebil cabidalists" and you would have had an actual debate.

Go read a book, nigger

Maybe you should get some life experience before assuming what other people did and ought to do.

>vaguely insisting that all real proof must come from posts made, and not deleted, on Holla Forums, in a currently existing thread, over a fairly narrow window of time, and not giving any reason as to why, and otherwise it's not real evidence
Kys

I made no false equivalence. Holla Forums said fun is due to [their bogeyman] and were responded to with "degeneracy is due to [your bogeyman]." You have rationale behind thinking capitalists are the bogeyman while Holla Forums has rationale for why Jews are.I was not refuted because you brought up your rationale. In fact, I expected you to have some.

I see no reason to debate which is the case in this thread because I agree it's the capitalist system. Im saying you should have made an argument in the capped thread so that it wouldn't be just a bunch of retarded shit flinging.

Morons.

No reasonable person would buy this. You're just wasting everyone's time.

What exactly am I "selling?" That refutation is better than contradiction? Pretty sure that's THE reasonable stance in this case.

Also, do a search for "naive realism." You might learn a lot about yourself.

A bad argument

What is so bad about my argument?

False equivalencies, strawmaning and generalized faggotry.

I made no false equivalence nor a strawman.
Try again or point to where I made such a fallacy.

You're comparing our critique of rightful blame of the owes of society to be put on the bourgeoise, which has evidence and theoretical works to back it, to the autistic screeching of madmen that honestly think that there is a cabal of jew controlling every facet of everything that happens everywhere at all times.
That's a false equivalence, nigger.

first off, that's a strawman. Holla Forums generally thinks it's in their [Jew's] blood to be subversive. not that all the bad things Jews do is orchestrated by any singular entity. second off, they ARE equivalent.
It's not just "autistic screeching," they have mountains of " evidence and theoretical works to back" their claims. You would know this if you took 5 seconds to set foot in one of their recommended reading threads.

First of all, you`re wrong. If you had spent any amount of time there, you would know. As it has become apperant, you argue from a position of ignorance. No wonder you are so assblasted about "go read a book".
Second of all, they aren't equivalent. Their """"""theoretical work""""""" is based on fanfiction and debunked """scientists""" and """experts""". The fact that you're still arguing that they are comparable at all just further shows the depth of the ignorance from which you proclaim to "debate" us.
Go read a book, nigger and stop pretending you know shit when you most clearly do not.

I spend quite a bit of time there, actually. You could probably call me a native of Holla Forums. The generalizations you seem to interpret as meaning they think there's some sort of cabal is just a shorthand for aggregate Jewish behavior.

Yes, because someone coming along afterward and disagreeing completely invalidates it. Very convincing.

Because me disagreeing with you automatically means I'm the ignorant one. Sure.

I alluded to naive realism earlier, but i guess it's time for some spoonfeeding:

It's a very common cognitive bias that you appear to be suffering from. The first step to fixing the problem is admitting you have one.

Hmm, now which public "intellectuals" have I seen assume this epistemological framework? I can't quite recall…

You clearly argue like one, and seem to know an awful lot about what "Holla Forums thinks."
Yes, and there's no credible reason why "aggregate Jewish behavior" should align with "destroying western civilization" owing specifically to that group's shared unique characteristics.
Spoke too soon.
You have to consider the weight of evidence and make informed judgements on which is the more predictive between competing models. The issue is not that there exist people who disagree.
Oh, right, because me disagreeing with your claim that we think because you disagree with us you're automatically ignorant means I'm the one who thinks disagreeing with me means you're automatically ignorant. Sure.
You're begging the question, too. Of course people who disagree think the other guy's wrong. It's in the name, dis-agree. This isn't an argument.
We could go down the line for ages
This sort of "playing the middle" "all opinions are equally valid, and therefore mine is valid, and therefore right" rhetorical gambit is obnoxious. Aren't you supposed to be against this sort of radical cognitive relativism, if you're from Holla Forums?

Kek, you even affirm the consequent when you're being polemical. You could've just said we think we're perfectly objective when we're not, but you wanted to dodge the "do you know that objectively?" response.
And oh dear, what if someone disagrees with these two?

How about the fact that they have historically been banned from virtually every civilization in history? How about the disproportionate amount of Jews leading historical social movements? This is certainly not a deductive argument as I am far too lazy to get balls deep into this right now, my whole premise atm is than not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so without reason. But the number one way of predicting human behavior is by observing past behavior.

It appears it is, for you would not be autistically screeching "read a book" whenever dissent rears its head.

being wrong is not the same thing as being ignorant.

I'm not advocating for that. What I'm advocating for is that you take the time to actually understand your opposition before you start making assertions about them.

I should have clarified. I meant the term in the social science context, not the philosophical one.

Gee, I'm sure there's no better way to explain historical events than genetic predestination.
Look, you need an existence and uniqueness argument. You need a trait, or set of traits, which explain the evidence, exist among jews, are unique to jews, and make up some significant portion of jews. If it's something like higher Autism Level for the leadership of social movements and overrepresentation in academia, that's a point about high-iq people and not necessarily jews, and it more makes sense to describe it as a characteristic of the other group, unless its quintessential "jewishness" can be established. Same issue with jews relative to "the group at the intersection of these specific traits at these specific magnitudes," especially if the latter is either any smaller or larger than the group of all jews.
Like I say, it's one way of rationalizing observations. Is it the best one?

You would need one hell of a deductive argument to demonstrate that.
Again, yes, everyone has a reason for everything, but is it a good reason? Is it correct? We can actually judge this through various methods.

Again with this. Again, I never say that:
It's not relevant to anything you've discussed with me, bringing it up serves no purpose. Yeah, it's bad when people do that in lieu of argument, we all agree on this. But it's also a polemical device people use after arguing when they receive insistent, broken responses, non-arguments and bad faith.

If Alice is wrong, it stands to reason that she's ignorant of the reasons why she is wrong.

Yeah, I know they allege it's "aggregate jewish behavior," and it may be. But that obscures the questions of how and why, what actual fundamental forces underlie this, which they either don't address or attribute to evolutionary psychology, autonomous culture, or esotericism.

So you were just looking for a fancy way to say "think they're objective."

One of those being debate. So maybe stop crying when people disagree with you and take the time to understand their argument. Reminder: I have already cleared up a couple strawmen you have made about Holla Forums. There's probably many others you have constructed.

Sorry for tying this back to the main premise of this thread.
to be honest i think you're just interpreting it that way due to your own bias. You have yet to actually show me an example of this.
commies made no argument there either. That was a shitshow.
ignorance isn't the lack of knowledge, but the lack of will to acquire knowledge. Not knowing something just means you don't know. Not adjusting your stance when new information is provided is ignorant.

Pretty sure evolutionary psychology is the consensus apart from memes.

Naive realism goes beyond that. It's to think you're objective to the extent that no new knowledge could sway you from your position and that anyone who disagrees must be [place negative characteristic here].

bookchin is retarded but your scientism is even more retarded