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 -
Right right. The wall at which one will break one's head is not there until Judith Butler and her friend performatively declare that its there. How can people seriously believe this drivel?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LakyLudke @arthur_affect and
You didn't even read the simplified explanation.
1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @arthur_affect and
Because Mr. Chu clearly does not understand what "performativity" is. We really dont need Judith Butler to understand that social roles we play and our self image related to those roles are not essential properties of self. We kinda have known it for about 3000 years.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LakyLudke @Eristae and
Right, see, in one breath you say "We've always known this is true" and AT THE SAME TIME say "And therefore any conclusions you draw from it are obviously false, because duh, the ancients already knew all about it"
1 reply 3 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
This is exactly the kind of nonsense Butler was saying she wanted to cut off by not trying to make her writing about certain concepts "accessible"
2 replies 2 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
What Butler means by "performativity" goes quite a bit deeper than "Well when I'm feeling good I wear my pink hat and that lets people know I'm in a pink-hat kind of mood" Specifically, she talks a lot about the divide between the "material" and "performative" is fragile
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @LakyLudke and
I.e. what certain people (TERFs) want to do is say "Well there's some stuff about gender identity that's just fake, like wearing pants vs. skirts, but the difference between having a dick or a vagina is *physical* and that's REAL" And she's like "Not so fast"
1 reply 1 retweet 24 likes
(Like, to be really blunt, HAVING a dick matters a lot less in this world than what you do with it But the bigger discourse of why shit is more complicated than that takes a lot longer to work through, and most people just don't want to)
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @chibikonatsu and
To be fair, I did study lit theory, I'm not a layperson, I've read my Adorno and Derrida and Blanchot and Baudrillard and everything, and that passage up there actually is horseshit pointless verbosity, not using field-specific terms to ease clarity.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nataliereed84 @arthur_affect and
I mean, even this thread itself is a demonstration of the capacity to talk about gender theory without the need to bust out terms like "illlocutionary", you know?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.