It is unreasonable to expect ANY deep field of study to be easily explained to laypeople, especially bored hostile laypeople with "What's there to explain? It's not science or anything, EVERYONE can just read a book and criticize it" It's an obnoxious celebration of ignorance
-
-
I asked the original poster to explain in simple words the drivel we saw - but still no answer. I will send you a cookie if you can even just to explain what is it about and what are the objects in that sentence.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
It's about the Butlerian concept of "performativity", the idea that none of us essentially IS one of the things that makes up our identities automatically and without effort, that everything you think of as true about yourself is a role you dress up for and act out onstage
3 replies 3 retweets 96 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
There is no meaning to just BEING a man or a woman, a man or a woman is something you PERFORM, you only get defined as a man by other people by going out on the stage of the public sphere every day and ACTING LIKE a man according to certain rules that define "manhood"
1 reply 4 retweets 60 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
So this first passage is about how Victorian literature is from a time and place that, on the surface, rejects this philosophy out of hand -- it's a time when people outright said everything about you was determined from the moment of your birth by your genetics
3 replies 2 retweets 58 likes -
Seriously? Your superficial knowledge is showing I think. The concept of "genetics" was not even known in Viictorian times. What a bunch of ahistorical illiterate nonsense.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Heredity", if you prefer, but the word "genetics" was in fact coined in 1819
2 replies 1 retweet 26 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
Lol I mean Gregor Mendel, whose wikipedia page gives him the nickname "the father of modern genetics" was born after Queen Victoria, and died before her.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ShrimpMeatMom @arthur_affect and
Charles Darwin was born 10 years before Queen Victoria.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ShrimpMeatMom @LakyLudke and
I think she thinks the discovery of genes was synonymous with the discovery of DNA, and that they were all discovered at the same time (this is a very common layperson's misconception, thanks to people using the two terms interchangeably)
2 replies 2 retweets 24 likes
The concept of genes was, of course, known about for a LONG time before it was known that DNA carried genes Just like the substance known as DNA was discovered and isolated from the nuclei of cells long before anyone knew what it was for
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @ShrimpMeatMom and
The BBC movie Life Story puts a snappy line about this in the mouth of James Watson about the race to discover "the biological basis of genetics" "As far as we know, genes are a function without a molecule, and DNA is a molecule without a function -- it's a match made in heaven"
0 replies 1 retweet 7 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.