Judith Butler interview

Haha allmywhat. I suggest reversing into the stone wall at speed.

So much comedy potential. The writer's proposal to change the question but keep the same answer sounds like something out of the Morecambe and Wise school of philosophy: 'I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.'

Oh that’s hilarious 😆

One of my colleagues is one of those angry Roger Scruton types of analytic philosopher. His daughter is quite young, in her twenties still, but shaping up to be a talented Continental philosopher. He’s very, very angry about this still, and repeatedly complains about her being captured by an academic discipline “without rigour”, and how this was caused by her refusing to take up Greek and advanced mathematics as a teenager, and instead being interested in stuff he considers “without merit” - like literature, art, theatre etc.

It must be a charmed existence to be a middle aged man and that’s one of your major angsts in life 🙄

How am I going to get my car back?

I'm pleased to see you raised this issue yourself (if that isn't too outmoded a term). I couldn't conceive the delicacy necessary for such a materialist concern as that of retrieving a car in a parked state - especially if there were no indication of a preference to remain in that state or embrace another mode of being, irrespective of your emotional need for it.

While you interrogate your desire for the car and need to dominate it to supply your transportation or status needs, I undertake to reflect upon my hitherto blinkered and privileged view of 'sites' as a signifier of some form of quantitative reality.

Don't mess around, go to the source:

www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/d87iot/my_33f_husbands_35m_career_in_academic_philosophy/

In a similar vein, something from the Reddit archives just seen on Twitter:

My (33F) husband's (35M) career in academic philosophy is ruining our marriage

My husband and I are both academics. We've been married for 3 years, and been together for 6. He is an academic philosopher and I am a physicist. He has recently expressed displeasure that I've never seriously engaged with his work. Now, I've read a bit of the classics of philosophy, but my husband's work is more in what I'm told is called the "continental" tradition. Unfortunately, everything he's shown me has just seems completely insane.

Looking forward to a range of JB Practical Guides: Changing a light bulb. Putting up a shelf. Making a cup of tea, etc.

They could be bestsellers like those spoof Ladybird books for grown-ups.

I’m prepared to be mocked and dismissed for my re-envisioning of the concept of "my driveway" as contingent and complex. Unfortunately, we live in anti-intellectual times. How am I going to get my car back?

Amazing allmywhat !

"Sites" should not be understood to be geographically or temporally bound. Violently imposed and antiquated parking laws and historical constraints of gender can both be sites of nonviolent resistance.

Sometimes you have to imagine in a radical way that makes you seem a little crazy, that puts you in an embarrassing light, in order to open up a possibility that others have already closed down with their knowing realism. I’m prepared to be mocked and dismissed for my re-envisioning of the concept of "my driveway" as contingent and complex. Unfortunately, we live in anti-intellectual times. How am I going to get my car back?

sites of nonviolent resistance

To the rest of us, would that be parking on the road (where legal) but with attitude if it's not immediately outside the home in question?

And or as appropriate, allmywhat

That is amazing, @allmywhat !

I made a Judith Butler parking diagram, by reproducing and undoing the discursive techniques of intersectional analysis.

(I can't mimic her writing to save my life but I think I have a decent handle on her logic.)

Yay @ScreamingMeMe, that prize was superbly well deserved. May the winner be awarded all the biscuits!! (And a signed EP of Parklife)

The image I get is Blakey from On the Buses.

Not quite the point of the thread, but I now have an unforgettable image of Judith Butler, with moose antlers, sitting in a Mini in a cul de sac and raging that someone has blocked her driveway.

So the Guardian still has one or two editorial standards! Jolly good!

But ref Butler. Even my reasonably woke children, who definitely suspect me of being gender critical, know better than to call me a fascist. But somehow Judy knows me better?

Butler is full of shit isn't she?

The notorious deleted bit was just a load of unsubstantiated assertions. Which I thought was a bit of a philosophy fail.

Has anyone posted about the Guardian editing their article?
Apparently it broke their own guidelines.
pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-pulls-judith-butler-gender-interview/

Editor-in-Chief Editor Kath Vine

It looks like this column needed more work.

[quote Franca123]Sorry if this has been shared already:

www.spectator.co.uk/article/terf-war-reignites-at-guardian-hq[/quote]
"Butler said the fact that 'trans-exclusionary feminists have allied with right-wing attacks on gender' was 'appalling and sometimes quite frightening'" The 'fact', Steerpike?

Name calling is a sign of weakness if you're trying to argue your case, but many TRAs have no interest in arguing a case, only in silencing their opponents.

You're right, and of course there are a lot of feeble-minded people who will decide, "Person X says this group of people are fascists, therefore they must be fascists" and then they don't apply any more thought to the matter because thinking hurts.

Still, I'd like to believe that people who have more than an ounce of sense - and surely there are some out there - will see the word "fascist" being bandied around and see it as a sign of desperation from a group of people who have nothing but insults.

And yet calling people names isn't really a particularly effective way of gaining dominance.

It's a clear signal as to the consequences of differing from a dominant ideology that has support from key institutions and mainstream media.

It also aggravates preference falsification.

And yet calling people names isn't really a particularly effective way of gaining dominance.

It can be effective way to achieve social dominance in some circumstances. Most people don't want to be callled 'facist' so if you create an association that people hold who view X will be denoucned as facist that will likely influence some people away from publically holding view X (expecially people who are not that invested in X in the first place).

Name calling is a sign of weakness if you're trying to argue your case, but many TRAs have no interest in arguing a case, only in silencing their opponents.