ChatGPT describes how to butter toast in the style of Judith Butler

[IwantToRetire]

The act of buttering toast is not merely a neutral, mechanical operation but rather a performative enactment of breakfast itself, one that is inscribed within a broader matrix of cultural norms and expectations. To grasp this act fully, we must interrogate the implicit structures that render toast and butter legible as objects within the epistemological framework of morning consumption.

One does not simply butter toast in an autonomous, self-evident manner. Rather, the gesture is citational, reiterating a series of habitualized practices that constitute the normative boundaries of what “buttering” and “toast” mean within the hegemonic discourse of breakfast. The knife, a seemingly benign implement, operates as an extension of the subject, its movements governed by the tacit knowledge of what constitutes an appropriate distribution of butter. But whose butter? Whose toast? And who determines the adequacy of coverage, the sufficiency of spread?

To spread butter is to engage in a spatial-temporal negotiation with the toast’s surface, a surface that, like the body, is neither neutral nor inert but already implicated in the conditions of its own reception. The butter itself, melting into the porous texture, does not merely adhere but interpellates the toast as toast-that-has-been-buttered, a new ontological state that emerges through the process of application.

Yet, this process is neither universal nor without contestation. Alternative subjectivities and resistant practices—margarine, jam, dry toast—gesture toward the instability of breakfast norms, revealing the contingency of what is often taken as a given. In this sense, the act of buttering toast is not merely an individual choice but a site of discursive production, where the subject is both constituted by and constitutive of the structures that govern legibility, taste, and the performative materialization of the morning meal.

(Saw this on facebook and thought I would share as I know how highly FWR values JB's thought process. Apparently there is a whole number of these, eg how to eat a banana in the style of Judith Butler.)

Thank you- I was trying to remember what that was called.

How would FWR on mumsnet discuss incels

On FWR (Feminists' Working Roundtable) on Mumsnet, discussions about incels would likely center around a feminist perspective. FWR is a space for women to discuss issues related to feminism, gender, and social justice, so conversations around incels would probably take a critical approach. Here's how such a discussion might unfold:

1. Critique of Incel Ideology: FWR members would likely critique the misogynistic aspects of the incel (involuntary celibate) community, which often blames women for their lack of romantic or sexual success. The discussion would point out how incels perpetuate harmful stereotypes about women, objectify them, and hold them responsible for their personal struggles.
2. Focus on Toxic Masculinity: Many posts might focus on how the incel community reflects broader issues of toxic masculinity, where men are expected to conform to rigid standards of hyper-masculinity and sexual entitlement. The conversation might emphasize the harmful effects of these pressures on men’s mental health, as well as on their relationships with women.
3. Gender Dynamics: There would likely be a focus on how the dynamics of gender power and control play out within the incel movement. Members would discuss how incels’ attitudes often stem from a sense of entitlement to women’s time, affection, and bodies, and how this reflects a broader societal issue where men are socialized to expect women to fulfill certain roles.
4. Empathy and Solutions: Some threads might explore how to approach individuals who identify as incels in a more empathetic way, acknowledging that many of these men might be struggling with loneliness or mental health issues. There could be discussion on how society, including feminism, can help reframe conversations around relationships, rejection, and emotional well-being for everyone.
5. Violence and Radicalization: A serious part of the conversation would likely address the potential for incel ideology to escalate into real-world violence. Feminists on FWR may express concern over incels who advocate for violence against women and discuss how to prevent this kind of radicalization. There could be calls for education, better mental health resources for men, and more focus on challenging harmful online communities.
6. Raising Awareness: Feminists would probably discuss how to raise awareness about the dangers of incel culture, especially for young men who may be drawn into it. The emphasis would likely be on creating healthier, more positive spaces for men to address their frustrations and find support.

Overall, FWR's discussion would likely combine criticism of incel culture with compassion for those affected by it, all while reinforcing feminist values of equality, respect, and non-violence.

Yep. Nailed it.

Hmm. Not sure about point 4. There should be rather more calling them fucking idiots and asking why women are once again expected to sort out men's problems.

It was as though ChatGPT had FWR through a nice clean wash.

After all we are the "Feminists' Working Roundtable" where not doubt after our discussions we do some good works on the way home to DH, and resume our ideal home exhibition lifes.

That paragraph that identifies as a sentence intersects with the thread about why people believe TWAW. The pomo side of it thinks if you keep saying the words that's disruptive enough to reshape reality. I hope, @JustSpeculation you don't mind me reposting it over on that thread, too?

With the bio detergent at 90C removing all those nasty staining swear words, and a good dose of fabric softener at the end?

FWR with the bolshiness and sharp edges reduced by an order of magnitude?

Nothing like as much fun!

Nothing like as much fun!

I realised too late that I failed in my role as part of this online AI, which is to help with its training.

ie I should have replied you dont seem to understand the anger and humour. Please re-do your work and include the necessary rude words and jokes.

She’s just written this in an article in the latest LRB:There are two significant problems with using gametes to define sex. First, no one checks gametes at the moment of sex assignment, let alone at conception (when they don’t yet exist). They are not observable. To base sex assignment on gametes is therefore to rely on an imperceptible dimension of sex when observation remains the principal way sex is assigned. Second, most biologists agree that neither biological determinism nor biological reductionism provides an adequate account of sex determination and development. As the Society for the Study of Evolution explains in a letter published on 5 February, the ‘scientific consensus’ defines sex in humans as a ‘biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex.’ They remind us that ‘sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.’ Interplay, interaction, co-construction are concepts widely used in the biological sciences. And, in turn, the biological sciences have made considerable contributions to gender theory, where Anne Fausto-Sterling, for example, has long argued that biology interacts with cultural and historical processes to produce different ways of naming and living gender.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/judith-butler/this-is-wrong

Yeah, I don’t think she understands what biologists are saying.

She doesn’t understand biology at all.

Judith Butler and the Metaphysics of Nonsense “I identify, therefore I am”

Butler is a reactionary figure. Her attack on reason, science, the universality of language, and conceptual clarity is not a progressive liberation, but a surrender to cognitive tribalism. Her philosophy is not an extension of the Enlightenment but a premodern regression.

Few figures have achieved the feat of elevating confusion to the level of dogma with the mastery of Judith Butler. While ancient philosophers struggled to discover the meaning of being, she, with a stoicism worthy of a better cause, has dedicated herself to demonstrating that there is no such being, but only an endless choreography of "performativities" whose sole function seems to be to torment those who still dare to think with their heads and not with a poststructuralist dictionary.

Of course, in her benevolence, Butler has freed us from the tyranny of biology, logic, and common sense, because, as we well know, reality is nothing more than an oppression constructed by the perfidious agents of heteropatriarchy. It no longer matters that the categories of man and woman have been used with a certain consistency by humanity since time immemorial; Now, thanks to the magic of “discourse,” we can free ourselves from those oppressive chains and, with enough conviction and a confusing thesis, self-define as anything from a houseplant to a non-binary divine being.

Butler's great feat, however, is not her skillful use of academic gibberish or her ability to write sentences more indecipherable than a moldy medieval manuscript or a text written in my handwriting. No. Her crowning achievement has been to turn incoherence into a political weapon. Her doctrine has not only given activists the pleasure of denouncing oppression on every street corner—without anyone telling them anything—but it has also allowed an entire generation of “thinkers” to avoid the danger of thinking. Why be precise when you can deconstruct? Why seek the truth when you can claim that truth is just another form of domination?

If Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," Butlerology offers us something much more sophisticated: "I identify, therefore I am." And if anyone has the bad taste not to accept this premise, they can be accused of "epistemological violence," "cognitive fascism," or any other verbal sin that gender theory sees fit to invent that day. Because, in the world of Butler and Torquemada, debates are not won with arguments but with anathemas.

The most ironic thing of all is that this supposed revolutionary of thought is not actually a transgressor, but a conservative in disguise. Yes, I said it. Butler is, at heart, a reactionary figure. Her attack on reason, on science, on the universality of language and conceptual clarity is not a progressive liberation, but a surrender to cognitive tribalism. His philosophy is not an extension of the Enlightenment but a pre-modern regression in which logos is replaced by myth, evidence by narrative, and argumentation by emotion.

Butlerian postmodernism presents itself as disruptive, but what it breaks with is not the real structures of oppression, but rather the very foundations that allow us to identify them: critical reason, verifiability, internal coherence. What it proposes is not emancipation but a new obscurantism, a paralyzing relativism in which everything is fluid except the dogma it imposes. In the name of liberating the subject, it dissolves it; in the name of the struggle against power, it hands over to each pressure group its own version of the truth, creating a fragmented and unmanageable world where rational communication becomes impossible. And if anyone needs further confirmation of its reactionism, what better than its love for Hamas and the violent and autocratic pre-modern Islamic world?

Butler doesn't open doors, she closes them. She doesn't clarify, she obscures. She doesn't liberate, she disperses. And she does so with the arrogance of someone who knows she can go unpunished, protected by an academy that no longer rewards lucidity but opacity disguised as depth, intolerance disguised as activism. Hers is a philosophy without anchors, without truth, without a world. A philosophy that doesn't say: "this is" or "this should be" but simply: "everything is construction," even the very phrase that affirms it. And when everything is construction, nothing is an argument: everything is reduced to performing anguish, pain, and offense.

We can only thank this illustrious revolutionary of nonsense for having transformed academia into a battlefield where the greatest act of resistance is not intelligence, but absolute and devout surrender to the fog of postmodernism. Because if Judith has taught us anything, it's that clear thinking is an arbitrary construct of power... and the only answer to that is to write more books in which no one understands anything, but everyone is afraid to dissent.

https://revistareplicante.com/judith-butler-y-la-metafisica-del-desproposito/

(Google translate so may have some errors. But posting because I enjoyed reading it and some others on FWR might also.)

Brilliant. And actually very publishable. Decades ago, I used to work in an academic field that has since become almost entirely captured. I used to read articles like this about material culture. I even used to aspire to writing like this ... 😂

Not sure if JB has ever directly talked about queer theory, but cant help but think this paragraph explains the behaviour of (some) students in universities.

Her crowning achievement has been to turn incoherence into a political weapon. Her doctrine has not only given activists the pleasure of denouncing oppression on every street corner—without anyone telling them anything—but it has also allowed an entire generation of “thinkers” to avoid the danger of thinking.

Just asking, but has anyone seen Judith Butler in real life and can confirm that she has full humanoid characteristics and doesn’t have a battery pack she has to carry around as back up if her internal batteries fail?

It’s almost as though she is deliberately ignoring the entire mammalian presence on Earth where the separation into male and female occurs without all this navel gazing. Not to mention the many aquatic species, the amphibians, the insects, the reptiles , the avian species and of course all the other living elements like plants all of whom have by and large - with some very minor adjustments- , evolved themselves into having distinct female and male features, all of which are needed for the satisfactory reproduction and continuation of each species.

Sort of seems to be the norm for this planet doesn’t it.

don't be daft, no one would design an android which talked like that! If one did it would surely be returned as defective.

You have a point. Though maybe she escaped from the laboratory and is threatening to spill the beans on who the other androids are if they don’t let her speak, and since no one understands what she is saying anyway the decision has been made to let her rant on until her next service is due when they will re calibrate her as a railway station announcer .

A trifle harsh on the professionally incomprehensible. I mean station announcers.

I said upthread that perhaps if JB wrote about toast, I could understand her better.
So .....
There are two significant problems with using gametes to define toast. First, no one checks gametes at the moment of toast assignment, let alone at conception (when they don’t yet exist). They are not observable. To base toast assignment on gametes is therefore to rely on an imperceptible dimension of toast when observation remains the principal way toast is assigned. Second, most biologists agree that neither biological determinism nor biological reductionism provides an adequate account of toast determination and development. As the Society for the Study of Evolution explains in a letter published on 5 February, the ‘scientific consensus’ defines toast in humans as a ‘biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary toast characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up toast.’ They remind us that ‘toast and jam result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.’ Interplay, interaction, co-construction are concepts widely used in the biological sciences. And, in turn, the biological sciences have made considerable contributions to toast theory, where Anne Fausto-Sterling, for example, has long argued that biology interacts with cultural and historical processes to produce different ways of naming and living toast.

There, that makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?

Well it almost makes sense..... Up to the point of toast having gonads. Gotta be honest, I will never butter, let alone eat, toast that has gonads.

I'm sure I've had taramasalata on toasted bread.

Eta that's possibly more gamete than gonad.

Well yes, gametes on toast are pretty normal fare. I had gametes Benedict for breakfast yesterday, very clearly observable and they definitely existed.

This has been very interesting. I don't think Butler actually understands the difference between a definition of something and a marker. I remember someone here some time ago saying that she's actually not very bright. I see very clearly what that someone* meant now.

*Sorry, I genuinely can't remember who it was.