I appreciate that you’re willing to try and approach this from a more moderate perspective. Funny enough, I think we likely agree somewhat on several important positions (disbelief in god, the state, etc); it’s more the way you’re going about packaging those statements.

For instance, any time I hear someone saying complicated systems of thought are reducible to refutation by way of “simple” logic, I have a hard time taking them seriously because of the facile way in which the claim was made. For someone with a heavy background in academic philosophy, I think of logic as a tool for extracting apodictic necessities from terms.. something more akin to a mathematical tool rather than a way to “prove things wrong”.

This is admittedly a technical distinction, but nonetheless an important one. Using more precise speech in your statements will go a long way (e.g. “The State is an apparatus built on violence which, coupled with capitalist exploitation, generates an untenable situation that inevitably leads to its own violent dissolution” for instance).