What's the easiest way to completely destroy the "muh human nature" argument?

Pretty much this. Any real research into anthropology completely shatters the human nature argument, as well as effective mods oh human organization, conceptions of gender, actually pretty much everything you can think of. Its is after all basically looking at the human possibilities for pretty much everything humans do.

This books covers both these aspects quite well, OP. It also exemplifies clearly how capitalism never was separated from the states and how they used violence to enforce things like markets and money unto societies.
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=784A4D178F690858F66331408070A498

Just a few centuries ago feudalism and aristocracy were considered the natural state of human society, and that existed for much longer than modern capitalism has.

What that tells the other person is you don't understand Foucault's ideas enough to summarize them in layman's terms.

Also, would Tomoko be a leftist? Perhaps she considers her feelings of social alienation as a microcosm of workers' alienation

It's just a joke, really. Besides panopticism is pretty easy to explain when you look at anthropology, humans changing their environment to suit themselves (nomads > agriculture > formal systems of writing "cuneiform/code of Hammurabi"), and the contemporary state of surveillance, that "I" still act in accordance with the law whether or not someone is present before the camera filming. Foucault has more to say about human society than just this though and recommend looking at Madness and Civilization for a larger discussion.

this sounds like another liberal "do your own research" argument. if you're going to convince someone, dont tell them to find their own answers, because chances are they wont. just explain it to them, if you cant then you probably dont even know what you're talking about.

the whole point is to convince, not to act like a smug piece of dunning-kruger shit who uses the "read a fucking book" argument

It was a joke, holy aspergers!

not even kidding, ive seen actual people using that argument (or similar types of half-assed arguments) unironically. it's a pretty toxic element of the left tbh.
isnt that considered idpol?

It's idpol to like books?
The reason I recommend authors is not because I want to pretend I've understood them, but rather point out that these muh human nature arguments have been had time and time again and the better of them are with critical thinkers, not anonymous idiots, like myself, on an imageboard.

no no i didnt mean it like that. is it idpol to tell people to "read a fucking book" instead of actually explaining it to them?

Tomoko would either be a NEETsoc or a radical leftist
She's too alienated for any sort of safe mainstream politics

Once she is forced to get a job she will become one for sure.

Not them, but how and why would that be IdPol?

It'd be really smug and annoying, but not really related to identity politics.

This argument falls apart once you expose that muh human nature only ever means greed and selfishness in this context. They just conveniently ignore the other 99% of human nature. Point out that human beings are extremely social and cooperative by nature, and that even capitalist society requires a huge amount of cooperation to function.

Yeah, it probably is, to identify so closely with a commodity. However, the arguments, and language within isn't itself the material object. You're right, though, there is a line between being an asshole and actually considering the debate.

that meme
come on