weak looking dude, 2bh
>>7417605
>How did you get in here?!
Help, police, there's a strange boy in my office!
Are you just performatively frightening me and I can desconstruct it by performing some parodic acts?
>>7417605
You wish you had a dick like me senpai
>>7417605
Imagine Judith Butler in place of Joe Pesci in the "Do I amuse you?" scene from Goodfellas. The motives behind her career will become apparent.
I think she came to my uni recently or something to do a lecture, but I skipped out on it cause I thought it was going to be a bunch of vaginas. Does she have anything good to say?
>>7418353
literally nothing.
it was jew tier.
>tfw I had to read a Butler article on Joan Scott tonight
>tfw I wanted to die
I did see a very funny article, though. It was in an anthology of articles on hardcore feminist discourse in various countries, and the Netherlands one was called "Feminism Behind the Dykes: The Situation in the Netherlands."
>>7419313
That made me sad.
her wikipedia page says nietzsche is one of her influences
>>7417629
oh snap
Somebody with the right kind of graphic talent should make one of those You Have Been Visited By pics with Camille Paglia and call it the Camille of Pagliasity and have the reply be "Rage Tight Paggers!
>>7420532
And have you seen the list of the people she's influenced?
>pussy riot
>>7418353
>I skipped out on it cause I thought it was going to be a bunch of vaginas.
I thought vaginas were just social constructs
>>7420532
That's not really surprising. He was a major influence on that whole postmodern crowd.
>>7422137
but like sjw are just ressentiment slave morality losers so like that's just so ironic.
>>7422150
Yeah, but he also anticipates of their ideas. I don't think anyone influenced by Nietzsche has taken him as a whole.
>>7421247
Fucking based mom Paglia
YES
E
S
>>7417605
Who's this cream dream?
Why would a qt frighten me?
>>7417605
not at all senpai
>>7422150
sjw is just an american and european thing. the third world is really fucked up so it is different
>>7417605
not at all, Judith Butler is based as fuck and it's a damn shame her work is literally 2deep for the majority of pleb pseudofems
>>7420532
you don't have to agree with someone to be influenced by them senn pie
that woman from tracey beaker
Is it fair to call the current strain of tumblr pseudofeminism Butlerian Jihad?
thing is, performativity gets construed as transphobic so there aren't too many butler-ean tumblrfems. besides they don't read
>>7425906
The tumblr crowd can (and does) construe anything as transphobic/sexist/racist, though.
>>7425950
That's why Butler is our greatest weapon.
>>7422268
nietzche was the OG SJW he was a militant vegan who believed in feels before reals, a moral relativist and a cultural marxist degenerate
>>7425906
Is her theory of gender performance simply that there's no inhent aspect to gender, or is it limited to how we express gender? If it's the latter, then I can get with it, but the notion that we're all the same until we're socialized is quite evidently bullshit.
>>7426113
Shouldn't you actually
you know
read?
>>7426156
replace the header on /lit/ with that and shut the board down
>>7424643
THE most cancerous post I have ever seen on this board
Feminism started with Wollstonecraft and ended with Paglia. The conversation is over.
>>7426213
To be fair after that ridiculously long thread on Andrea Dworkin its clear that the discourse is still rigorous.
As much as I disagree with it its not simple to argue against modern rad-fems. I honestly think that evolutionary psychology / biological determinism vs social constructivism is going to be the dominant intellectual debate of our generation.
>>7426276
>To be fair after that ridiculously long thread on Andrea Dworkin its clear that the discourse is still rigorous.
Top kek.
>>7426276
330 posts and like 20 posters. It was a handfull of angry autists arguing. It says absolutely nothing about the popularity of the debate.
>I honestly think that evolutionary psychology / biological determinism vs social constructivism is going to be the dominant intellectual debate of our generation.
It won't be because the Left has deemed it impossible to have the argument on anything other than their terms.
>>7426295
>evolutionary psychology
is bullshit science. So is a lot, a lot, of left-wing sociology too of course, but evopsych is for pseuds.
>>7426305
You know who told you that evolutionary psychology is a spook? Those Left-wing sociologists. Most of the concerns are with its ethical implications, not its testability or environmental assumptions. If the ridiculous ethical concerns weren't there, it would be as widely accepted as any major form of psychology.
>>7426326
>pretending it's a falsifiable field of study
fucking kek
if you want evolutionary psychology to ever be taken seriously it would be in the same vein as psychoanalysis is, you idiot.
>>7426326
>its testability
This is why I think it's shit.
>If the ridiculous ethical concerns weren't there, it would be as widely accepted as any major form of psychology.
If this is true it says more about mainstream psychology than it does about evopsych.
>>7426305
>Certain ways of thinking are more beneficial to genetic fitness
>Evolution naturally guides a given species more often towards this manner of behavior
>Evo psych is for pseuds
How is it as intellectually bankrupt as you imply? If you don't believe in constructionism and don't believe in evolutionary psychology than what do you believe? Because its inevitably one or the other.
Personally, I'm more in the former of the two, two big reasons I see off the top of my head:
>1.
If you look at the behavior of many animals, especially nesting birds, you'll see that they've actually developed materialist or even artistic thinking as a means to mate attraction. Part of the mating display of certain animals is contingent on the kinds on aesthetic and rarity of their displays: humans have certain behavior that fits this type of impulse.
>2.
Studies have proven that its possible to predict a person's thought/decision before they themselves think of it. In experiments where a person is meant to choose from one of a few restricted options, or to choose one of a few restricted words scientists are able to see what they choose before they themselves do.
>>7426326
It's also worth noting that evolutionary psychologists aren't trying to be moral philosophers. They're attempting to explain the origins of human psychology, not trying to tell you to how to live a happy, moral life. The racists and sexists who use their work are don't actually understand it.
>>7426337
lol developmental psychology works off far shakier assumptions and makes unfalsifiable claims all the time
>>7417605
No idea who this is. Let me guess, a butthurt lesbian preaching third-wave feminism? Calling all men rape apologists? Fuck off.
>>7426343
Because it's not falsifiable. You can't ever prove that a hypotheses about why a certain trait developed is true.
>>7426364
thank you for your contribution
>>7426361
I never said that evo psych is the only bad science. In fact, I made the opposite claim.
>>7426335
>if you want evolutionary psychology to ever be taken seriously
Too late, it already is. The field has multiple Nobel Laureates and its theoretical foundations are sound.
>>7426369
You're welcome, Professor Cunt-lint.
>>7426373
>literally self delusional
>>7426365
Practically yes. I think that there are certainly some elements that are falsifiable, but not many.
I guess the only real way to test socialization theories and evolutionary theories is to just make a little biosphere and just put people in there in isolation to see what happens rofl.
>>7426365
That's true on nearly every field in psychology. How many childhood development experts assume that their evironmental studies matter when they don't even take genetics into consideration?
>>7426384
It's funny, because the only people who bitch about it are social science nerds and Left wing moralists. That's probably your circle, which gives the false impression that no one takes it seriously.
>>7426395
>That's probably your circle
>YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU MUST BE PART OF ~THE ENEMY~
cool paranoia bro
>>7426402
So you're saying that the social sciences aren't hostile to evolutionary psychology? This isn't paranoia, it's fucking self-evident. It's also self-evident that being in an intellectual buble can give you the wrong impression of something.
>>7426412
>So you're saying that the social sciences aren't hostile to evolutionary psychology?
is that what you honestly think my three word post is saying
The basis of evolutionary psychology (and muhc of the rest of the field) - that there are cognative mechanisms that affect our behavior which are just as subject to the affects of evolution as the rest of our body - is pretty much undeniable. The fact that there are social scientists alive right now who don't believe this is a bigger concern than whether or not evolutionary psychology is unfalsifiable.
>>7426432
Yes i do, because my post suggesting otherwise made you mad
>>7426412
>>7426402
>>7426395
>>7426390
>>7426386
Who cares about the camps, it doesn't matter how tribalistic either side is, what matters is their argument:
Here's a good article that addresses it: http://www.dianafleischman.com/epap.pdf
There may be some ideas that aren't as empirically sound as in STEM fields, but I think that there's much more prove-ability in it than many social science fields.
>>7426438
just interacting with you makes me mad? that's a bit of a reach
>>7426440
>that there's much more prove-ability
Of course there is. The social sciences are so retarded they do studies that look at the behavior of parents and assume that that behavior is the causal affect of similar behavior in the child without taking genetics into consideration. They're literally assuming the cause and deciding the results before the study even takes place.
>>7426440
>http://www.dianafleischman.com/epap.pdf
Damn Jaime C. Confer is a fucking qt. Evolutionary psychologists are both smarter and more attractive
>>7425622
That's not the case
>>7420532
it's through genealogy of morals --> foucault's genealogical method and "everything is just about power!! you can't write objective history or discover truth, you can only use your POWER!! to establish values and readings of the past!"
leftists love him for that, even though like someone else said they should really be looking more closely at his ressentiment because it perfectly describes the Other they seem to want to maintain at all costs
>>7426276
>I honestly think that evolutionary psychology / biological determinism vs social constructivism is going to be the dominant intellectual debate of our generation.
It won't be because both have been BTFO by analytical philosophy
stay mad niggers
>>7426335
>falsifiability is the be-all end-all of science
No retard.
While I don't really think butler is right about much, she at least has a framework and argues for something.
performatives are an interesting explanation if nothing else.
Even most radfems like dwarkins are at least saying something
only thing that triggers me is the newer tumblr feminist shit, and swj shit. They dont even read radfems.
Does anybody ever learn psychoanalysis and conclude and believe, using that theory, they are fucked in the head?
Unironically, I mean, not with a smug smile saying naturally everybody is.
