Judith is phenomenal. There is no other way to put it. I am a PhD from Berkeley and a prof at McGill U. The last time I met her she took the time to listen. That's what Judith does. She listens to everyone. Do the same.
@@grahamjoss4643 That is very true..."Know thine enemy." I have been so disgusted with the garbage Butler puts out I can't stomach listening to her. Glad you could.
It used to be considered the people’s court when black men and black sympathizers were strung up, lynched, tarred, or mutilated by hoards in the name of ‘justice’ (usually based on false accusations) …I think it’s objective unless you humanize all, if not then humanity is subject to objectivity
The trans hate of women is intense, and I really wish they would just get their jack boots off the necks of women and tell males to stay the F out of female only spaces and services. I am just tired of the the hateful agenda, and the trans terrorists.
Man you really get the best guests and are clearly curious to learn about subjects you might not be traditionally familiar with. I always appreciate your openness and fluidity in conversations. Thanks again for all your work!
@@robinsonerhardt Oh Robinson… I already lost respect for you when you expressed sympathies for Norman Finkelstein. I really wonder how somebody who is familiar with logic can take Judith Butler seriously. Literally every serious philosopher thinks she‘s a complete bullsh!tter. She’s the total opposite of a clear writer.
@@robinsonerhardt There are literally philosophy professors (e.g. Sokal, Bricmont, Hübl) who gave lectures on „bullshit“ and used Judith Butler as an example. She’s well known for her obscurantism and pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
i love this interview! i've been reading judith butler for the longest and love their work!! i appreciate your approach so much, especially your willingness to interview people in areas that you are not the most well versed in and being open learn/discover along the way. also super interesting that judith butler doesn't currently have a theory of gender, and you can both sit together and parse through some of these complex ethical questions without necessarily arriving at a conclusion, but seeking knowledge nonetheless. i appreciate what you do, thank you!!
@@maebellez 'Super interesting' that JB doesn't have a theory of gender?! It doesn't even have a definition and nobody knows what's being talked about. Would be ridiculous and pathetic if it weren't for the fact that this has real world consequences in which a lot of people are getting hurt, amongst other things
@@ebflegg She's what you might call "prize fat". There really isn't much to her if you aren't lulled into her house of smoke and mirrors. She's like a really amazing dingleberry just hanging onto the bottom of our culutre.
I enjoyed this interview very much. I have also learned a lot from her detailed explanation of the complexity of different issues, instead of giving easy answers.
a philosopher who puts much more emphasis on the question than the answer. not better or worse for it, but you can tell it annoys a lot of people that aren’t familiar with the approach truthfully, there are times where the aim is more important than the caliber
Indeed. 💯 Alas, this is endemic midst an audience unfamiliar with post-Kantian so-called ‘Continental’ philosophy-and they are of course not to be blamed for that, but who are therefore (even as they are unaware of being) caught in the paradigm of the reigning scientistic ‘logic’ where meaning and knowledge are ‘always’ discursively attainable, contextually transcendent, and akin to mathematics. A few clever types will claim that Butler’s style is all post-modern mumbo jumbo, empty of content. For one thing, this is a deeply ignorant claim, historically speaking, when in fact the limitations of the scientistic approach to the world and its conception of language were already being heavily questioned in the 1790s by figures such as Herder, Hamann, Humboldt, and by many other thinkers since. Her so-called opaque style, in its very approach, solicits us to question our deeply ingrained prejudices about the attainment of meaning, knowledge, and values.
@@EyeByBrian Yep. A bunch of mumbo jumbo. Just the fact of all this "gender bender" garbage being put onto children is an abuse in my book. It's horrid.
This is an amazing channel and kudos on the brilliant guests you have here, even the ones I don’t always agree with, but always thought provoking. This was a specially good interview. ❤
@@ebflegg that amateur boxer in the Olympics is just a tomboy woman, she is not transsexuel or bipolar. and she lost so many times to other amateur women boxers. so please don't take it as a tranny competing against women.
Half the people in the comments don't even know what Butler is talking about and advocates for (and don't even try to understand, nor listen), and the other half came here just to hate on them because they saw them in the thumbnail, while not actually seeing the video. It's ridiculous, and further proves the point of their new book "Who's afraid of gender" - people don't even know what Butler's arguments are, and they don't even want to know. Anything that could potentially destroy their little world that is filled with their little social boxes, is for them not even worth engaging in...
i feel like i’ve seen a lot of people getting annoyed at butler saying “well there’s no universal theory of gender and all these things are much more complex than what we believe to be true and simple,” by simply doubling down on the ‘truth’ of things they believe to be simple. kinda funny as someone who actually studies this stuff, but also so annoying
Been getting recommended videos from this channel and watching and enjoying the ones with people I knew before but I made the unfortunate mistake o looking who this Robinson guy is and run into his resume and I never felt this much unaccomplished before. Great interviews btw, keep them coming!
This conversation was illuminating, though I found myself wrestling with the indirect nature of many responses. I wonder if other listeners had a similar experience? As my first time engaging with Judith Butler's ideas and speaking at length (having only encountered their work peripherally before), I was particularly struck by their analysis of Trump's function for certain supporters - how he serves as a kind of figure for particular emotional and ideological investments in leadership, even as this creates tensions with fantastical and unrealistic views of what governance is built on or should maintain in a democratic framework. Butler's framing of the Harris administration as the "anti-Trump" option was insightful, while acknowledging the need for further development on immigration and Middle East policy - this allowed for more personal understanding of some of my own thinking in this election. While Butler's discussion touched on psychoanalysis, I found myself wanting more concrete examples of how psychoanalytic theory specifically informs their work on gender. This gap was particularly noticeable when considering theorists like Jean Laplanche, whose ideas about psychic asymmetry and translation seem potentially relevant to understanding gender and sexuality. What struck me was the absence of any discussion about the complex relationship between psychoanalysis as clinical practice versus its academic application. There's a tension here: psychoanalysis operates under specific therapeutic conditions for analysands, yet academics often appropriate these clinical insights for broader social theory and uses - sometimes in ways that might jeopardize its intent and drift from its original therapeutic context. This distinction, seems crucial to me, as an analysand myself for many years now, in which the ethics of how this kind of “practice” and its shared field is to be understood and applied beyond the clinic. None of this was really addressed in the conversation. Perhaps Butler explores this tension more thoroughly in their written work? Or it could just something I think of whenever academics speak about "psychoanalysis." What struck others about the interplay between psychoanalytic thought and gender theory in this discussion? How did you find Butler's brief focus on melancholy and mourning relating to gender if at all? I know this was a casual conversation but I thought maybe more would be spoken about there. Thank you for this! Alex
Interview Shir Hever. He is an Israeli economist who is a coordinator at BDS and argues Israel has major internal social, economic, and military issues the media is not discussing.
How could you not cry when you see someone talking such pseudo-intellectual nonsense? She even called Hamas and Hisbollah allies of the Left. There’s good reason why no serious philosopher takes her seriously.
Why does no one who interviews Judith Butler challenge her in any serious way? They never seem to understand the arguments against her ideas on gender and sex, and she ends up saying the same incoherent things every time while the interviewer nods their head in agreement. It is so infuriating. Listen to Kathleen Stock or Holly Lawford-Smith or Alex Byrne to understand how to ask her serious questions. MANY people who disagree with her are not in the least bit right wing. If you believe that, you have no idea who her critics are.
Kathleen Stock is an absolute joker, and whatever Butler lacks in clarity and/or coherence, Stock exceeds mightily in ignorance and sheer sloppiness/laziness. I'll check out the other two names though
I want to start off by saying that I really do like this channel so far, and have enjoyed the interviews I've listened to. That said, over an hour in to this one, and I have found the discussion so far to disappointingly superficial. On the occasion that the conversation threatened to stray into interesting territory where the guest's ideas might be explored and explicated, Butler came across as evasive and reluctant to say much of anything, and the host really didn't push back. Judith Butler is one of the most influential and controversial living philosophers/academics out there, and her ideas and approach have certainly been an influence on and inspiration to many. So it's disappointing l that the discussion here really only danced vaguely close to concepts and ideas she puts forward in her work. To be honest I'm not sure much of anything has been said beyond quite banal discussions of politics that you could hear between any undergrads, plus, what, the insight that psychoanalysis is expensive? I'll admit, I don't understand Butler, or her work, at all. But I'm not arrogant enough to assume that means there isn't value there, it's a shame that a couple of times, when she was asked on some specifics her answer was basically "well, that's very complicated", and then moved on. In Butler's writings and other interviews, it often feels like she takes great pains to avoid concretely saying anything at all, and instead uses a lot of verbiage to produce something so impenetrable it makes up for its own lack of substance. I'm open to the idea that I'm just too ignorant/too much of a dumbass to "get it". But it's a shame that seems to be replicated in her interviews also, where circumlocutions and nigglings over terminology and peripheral details eat up the time and the subject gets lost. Her interview with Novara media was similarly frustrating There also seems to be some fairly fast and loose of language here too. An hour in and it's really not entirely clear to a listener what it means to describe a politician as "against gender". And that allows certain conflations that aren't justified or even acknowledged (at least, not here). If a politician who is "anti gender" is someone against trans rights, in favor of repression of what are often called gender nonconforming people and/or behaviours, etc., why does it follow from that that "gender" in the sense of gender equality (or, really, women's liberation, which is what is implied here) is inherently a part of that attack? I mean, other than that you can construct your phrasing so that they use the same word if you want to... I mean sure, it's generally true that reactionary forces in society and politics are both anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman, for obvious reasons, but that in and of itself isn't a particularly interesting observation, and it feels like Butler is making a much deeper and grander claim (but which, here, isn't at all justified, or interrogated, or even really explained). So as an answer to the question it seems like something between a cop-out and wordplay Furthermore, even the term, "anti-gender" which she uses throughout the interview, is never explained. She seems to be using it as a substitute for what people on the right refer to as "anti gender ideology", but why, and what does she mean by it (other than as a little rhetorical flourish to say "actually, nuh-uh, it's *you* who's the ideologue", but I assume it's probably more than that?). Like take an Orban or even moreso a Putin, or even a garden variety religious republican; their whole thing is about men being men, and women being women (that is to say, strong social pressure and even coercion both legal and extrajudicial to maintain strict traditional gender roles). So what is the meaning behind using the term "anti-gender" to describe this, in what sense _is_ that "anti-gender", and what even is meant by "gender" there. I'm entirely open to the idea that Butler has something unique to say about that that would be thought provoking or indeed insightful. But we just didn't get any of that here. I'll still be watching this channel, that all said. Perhaps you might get a chance to get Butler back on, and actually prod her a little to explain some of her ideas, even if her go-to answer always seems to be "well, that's really complicated". Sure, I'm sure it is, but maybe we could try to at least start to go into it somewhat? It comes across like a defense mechanism to me; Judith, could we maybe take just a little peek at the emperor's gown please? For all I know, it really is glorious (after all, emperors in reality, unlike fables, rarely do wander around in the buff 😄)
@@soymoder or if you just meant "the comment is long" then, ok, guilty as charged I suppose. This is a philosophy channel though, I imagine it's allowed 🙃
Owen Jones is touring America and interviewing Trump voters. He's just dropped a video and honestly it's absolutely wild. The disconnect between what Trump says, and how they describe him is simply mind blowing. Well worth checking out.
I notice that many of the comments that express dislike for Butler and their theories do not seem to be able to point to any actual concrete reasoning as to why they dislike their theories or answers. I would be curious to see what someone had to say that has some weight in the critique, rather than just another opinion. I notice that Butler is able to give logos, or reasoning for their logical deductions. However, many of the critics in these comments fail to do so.
Judith Butler wrote this lol: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
That's a perfectly understandable and grammatically sound sentence. This is a ChatGPT summary: The shift from a structuralist view, where capital is seen as uniformly shaping social relations, to a hegemonic view, where power is seen as flexible and reconfigurable, introduced a focus on temporality in structural theory. This change moved away from Althusser’s idea of fixed structures, highlighting instead the contingent and adaptable nature of hegemony, where power is continuously reshaped through specific, evolving strategies and sites of influence.
I was ready to like her and engage in her ideas but why is she so slippery on her theory snd current understanding of gender? If she wrote a book about it recently, she must have a working definiton to offer from which to start.
@eleneakh YES, have the two schizophrenic, islam AND trans friendly, ''tolerant'' '''''thinkers'''''( didn't have enough quotation marks for that one) in a room and be the least representative members of their tribe. ;)
1:15:00 This is the exact same argument made by people like Albert Speer, Hjalmar Schacht, and others during the early years of Nazi regime. They said the exact same thing, like being Nazi doesn't mean you are supporting the policies of Hitler. I think Kellner was didn't even join the Nazi party formally and claimed he was witness to the horrors. I think Hans Scholl and white rose movement was the only voice that resisted the Nazism in Germany, while other intellectuals who were very similar to Judith in their tone and not formal members were also complicit. Though, none of them faced any consequences. Its so astounding how Zionism has rotted the brains of everyone. Creating ethnic apartheid states will lead to fascism no matter how you go about doing it. I love what Judith has written in its context, but her claiming that she hasn't ever heard Gaza is concentration camp is a fine lie. She knows what Israel is doing is a genocide and there will be fallout from this. She is walking a fine line where she says she herself isn't a Zionist and also claims Zionism isn't bad only Netanheyu is. This is a subtle way of supporting the genocide without explicitly saying you support it. War crimes against the Palestinian didn't start in October. its over 75 years old. The original Nakba happened just before the establishment of Israel. I think we should submit Judith butler and her statement to the accountability archive as well.
i don’t think that’s what she’s saying at all, mainly because she has explicitly written about how ethnostates rely on violence (and gave israel as the main example) and cannot be sustained without that. she has quite clearly expressed opposition to israel in all her work. she never said “zionism isn’t bad only netanyahu is,” as you’ve seemed to hear, merely that reducing zionism as an idea to netanyahu’s government is incredibly reductive and unhelpful. i do think however, if you are taking a lifelong opponent of israel in action and words to be a zionist because you heard a phrase in an interview and assumed it meant something else, you are not a serious person. she literally said israel’s actions were genocidal in this interview. would highly recommend actually reading what they have to say about israel instead of basing your opinion off a 10 minute interview segment
He mirrors the frustration of the disenfranchised class and gives them a strong emotional freedom to express their rage. I shudder to imagine what 4 more years of a Trump "witches brew" will bring.
Maybe, but do you figure it is systemically possible enfranchise people under the current system of the US? I ask because I'm not convinced regarding my own country of Norway, that the existing system is fit to actually face the future without some crisis to shake things up. I'm not at all interested in right wing, but when politicians are so comfortable achieving basically nothing, and just protecting the status quo that is a slow extraction of resources from the many to the few, how do we actually get anything done? I don't know that voting is sufficient either, the extracting class has deep influence over the media, and thus they can easily divert meaningful movements, and have us bickering about minute details in our policies, rather than act and course correct as needed.
More like a team to pick. Hard to say he mirrors any frustrations when all that manifests from his and his followers doings is striving toward implementing as many social dividers as possible. Sure this country has problems but it is a silly oversimplification to then come to conclusion that trump was inevitable then due to the issues present. Americans have it easy so they pick a candidate that in no way will benefit their living and pick the whacky guy, and the popular vote is so easily ignored in favor of an unelected electoral college is what led to trump in my opinion
@@Late_not_on_time I think you underestimate how seductive demagogues throughout history are for isolated frustrated powerless people who are desperate for simple narratives to explain their misery. The vast majority of trump supporters are extremely isolated, stressed and disenfranchised people who want all the benefits of community and culture without actually participating in it within the context of their own neighborhoods and communities. They’ve retreated into their homes and jobs and in some cases churches but even most church going community belonging/participating people have little or no interest in the petty narratives of trump.
Both candidates are absolutely shameful and grossly unfit for office. I will vote for the platform that best represents my values. and just FYI, I wouldn't want to be president for the greatest treasure on earth. Whoever is in office for the next four years is going to bear the blame when everything comes unraveled.
I wander how Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics would look at the field of gender, since you have a section on language and gender. Maybe something that can be explored in the future.
I see the humanities lead to Continental Philosophy, and the natural sciences lead to Analytical Philosophy, honestly makes sense, if the dialectic is anything, it's a scambling machine, refuses to let anything be self stable and linear in progress.
26:00 From the little I know about Anthropology, the question of gender exists in different forms in different cultures. Even what a determined gender means differs. What it means to be a woman changes from culture to culture. I know of one case in which kids have two fathers (who play different roles) - one of them being a maternal uncle.
Wow, how the left sees the right: ‘they want to be free to hate’. The same way you now realize that the right doesn’t believe what Trump says literally, can’t you also see that it doesn’t have anything to do with hate? The left WANTS to believe the right ‘hates’, because it means the left can believe it is on the ‘side of angels’. It’s really really weird to think the other side ‘wants to hate’. They want to be free, period. That includes the freedom to say things that are uncomfortable and cause others to feel things they might not like. If you cannot understand that that is what freedom is, then I suppose nothing can make you understand.
Suppose my own personal freedoms would oblige it: if I were to keep you trapped in a room for three days without your consent, would you have the right to be upset with me for causing you to "feel things that you might not like"? Would you think that I "hate" you? To the point: your notion of freedom seems incredibly self-centered.
@ I don’t follow what locking people up for three days has to do with what the left or the right thinks. As for freedom, it doesn’t have anything to do with self centeredness. People must be able to speak their minds. To call bullshit on the dogmas, to be able to speak truth to power. That is freedom.
You'd be amazed at what the right thinks of the left, I don't think it's much more positive. And I don't believe that everyone who holds right wing beliefs holds those beliefs because they are hateful or something but I do think it's a bit true that the more right wing you consciously are, like someone who considers themselves far right, probably does hold a lot of hateful beliefs and falls back onto conservatism/right wing values as a way to be uncritical or to justify said beliefs. And considering most right wing beliefs are exclusionary.. to hold that type of belief in my opinion is to have some implicit hate that you haven't dealt with
@@ktk44man it’s quite dangerous, and a bit silly really to think people who do not see things the way you see them are hateful, or desiring to hate. Dangerous because it reinforces the idea in you that you yourself are ‘good’ or ‘loving’ by contrast. A bit silly, because it’s pretty silly to think all those people ‘must be wrong’, because they see things not your way. Who would flatter themselves that much? And ‘he did it too’ is not an argument, for this speaker to seriously say what she says about ‘those people wanting to hate’. That is the easiest, most self congratulatory way possible to see things.
@@ktk44man that’s the point really, you see everything in people that do not agree with your worldview as some form of hate. I know that that rethoric has been spewed endlessly, but it is nonsense. There is no ‘desire to hate’ or ‘implicit hate’. You are really fooling yourself if you buy into that. There are lots of reasons why democrats have lost, lots of reasons why people voted for Trump, but it has zero to do with hate. It has to do with what the Democrats stand for these days, the direction they seem to want to go in. You call it inclusion, except it isn’t inclusive, it is only inclusive of the people that agree and align with the crazy.
Judith seemed to enjoy pretending like she didn’t understand your questions and made moments unnecessarily defensive and awkward. In this environment with so much hate and misunderstanding around gender it would’ve been great for this prominent thinker to be a little more generous and warm but I guess she’s sick of talking about it after decades.
I suspect part of it is because one of the goals of post-structuralist philosophy is to challenge our default assumptions about what is normal. A lot of those default assumptions are the kinds of things that get coded into the premise of a question, rather than being the subject of the question itself. It's the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" problem: sometimes the best answer to the question is to challenge the question. In some cases, I suspect Butler's understanding of gender is so radically different that they *genuinely* didn't think the questions as posed made sense.
@@deadeaded And also, sometimes it wasn't that, sometimes the nitpicking really was exactly that. "We come from a culture where gender traditionally has been painted as being a simple binary, why do you think that is, where does that come from in your view?" (paraphrase) is not a tricky question to process. And as one of the leading and most prominent theorists/writers on gender and society, it's much more interesting to at least begin to answer that question, than to niggle around "but what society are we even in, maaan? What even is society, maaan? What do you mean "traditional"?", oh come on! I know that's a very uncharitable phrasing of it, but it is basically how she engaged with the questions. Like you know what is being asked Judith, it's a jumping off point to discuss what gender is and how it operates, is it really necessary to be shitty about it to a well-meaning interviewer 😅 Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair there, but it did feel a lot like this sometimes, lots of niggling as a sort of offensive defensiveness
42:35 I mean there is rapid onset gender dysphoria or maybe there isn't but it sure is being treated as if it existed when girls in their youth suddenly arrive with such conclusions.
"Trans women are beautiful and inspiring" is just another platitude. Objectively some of them are indeed "beautiful" after many cosmetic procedures. But there is absolutely nothing inspiring about having gender dysmorphia anymore than it's inspiring that my son currently has strep throat
They can be all of those things and society still have a healthy debate. They key is isolating the bigots from the advocates. The advocates are usually ppl who are ALSO from marginalized groups & want Trans rights while expressing legitimate concerns & recognizing that before performing Womanhood TransFems were males who have approached Women's space with many demands, a GREAT degree of entitlement & little consideration of impact & outcome towards women
When societies become stressed and people become isolated and frustrated, it becomes very seductive to have people even less powerful than oneself as a scapegoat so that the establishment can trundle along a little bit more.
that’s why butler had moved away from gender largely, it’s more like when you have a musical guest and they sing their most popular song. she’s been much more concerned with broader issues recently, just not as well known for that
@@soymoder ''deceptively easy topic for pseudointellectuals to feel smart.'' Which is why Butler commercially exploited them by writing books full of non declarative, unfalsifiable ''statements'' for them. :D
THEY ARE GREAT I LOVE THEM JUDITH I just won't cry "COME TO BRAZIL" like it's traditional of my people online to do so because last time we didn't treat Butler so goodly...
@TDavies-o9w Because I like her and because I want "The Left" to agree broadly. Also I think she has that feeling Kurt Cobain had when he was forced to play Smells Like Teen Spirit into infinity and rednecks started liking it. If we're not careful she may start self-harming.
Roughly 21% of Generation Z Americans who have reached adulthood -- those born between 1997 and 2003 -- identify as LGBT. That is nearly double the proportion of millennials who do so, while the gap widens even further when compared with older generations. What is it if not a fad?
33:15 "who is benefitting from this?" This is the central question, which cannot be understood without diving into the political economy of society. As important as issues of gender, race, and other identities are - their isolated analysis can only tell us how they operate. It doesn't tell us why they operate that way. Butler replied that she is not opposed to questions of "who benefits?", but that these can skew our analyis. In fact, while It's important to look into questions of gender, race, etc, their operation cannot be understood without understanding the political economy and capitalism (i.e., who benefits) I'm always intrigued when people who are "not experts" on such subjects are able to pinpoint these central questions. It seems as though central questions are sometimes sidelined by mainstream academia. Therefore, the "non-experts", like you claimed yourself to be, can still ask these questions while to the "academics", these do not occur. Anyway, I enjoy your interviews. I was introduced to your channel through interviews of Norman Finkelstein. Good inputs in this interview as well. Cheers!
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia Her inability/ unwillingness to engage with ANY factual definitions, the vague language she uses to baffle easily impressed morons and her lack of fluency when speaking opposed to her ''prolific'' writing are all BIG , BIG red flags. You're welcome.
@@rocksparadoxGiven that her work deals significantly in presentation, representation, and understanding, are you sure you're just not just refusing to engage with ideas outside of the objective? There's a place for that, for those of us who aren't terrified of ideas outside of the mainstream.
I thought she said “women” and then figured “other people” would be “girls”. (But I was also initially confused by her wording and had to figure it out.)
@@chucknorris7448 huh, I answered this question, but the UA-cam auto censor has removed my answer. I'll try again: the answer would be trans men and non binary people with the capability of getting pregnant. It's a small group, but they exist 🙃
Wait, his question was: "Maybe I should ask what your current theory on gender is?" And her answer was: "I don't have one. Sorry, I'm not useful in that way." I'm genuinely confused. Isn't that her main field?!
As a scholar of Husserl it blows my mind how "analytic philosophers" are oblivious of his work and it's impact on the 20th century - both "continental" and "analytic" philosophy. And it blows my mind regarding the lack of curiosity of analytic types. I've read every single analytic philosopher of note - from Frege to Kit Fine. And then I meet an analytic and they giggle at the very name of Levinas, Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida - the indoctrination in hard core analytic programs is no joke. Otherwise good stuff as always.
Isn’t it interesting how Robinson uses this kind of tactic to avoid making a comment that reflects his own view point by resorting to MY FRIEND OR MY PARENTS OR A TEACHER OF MINE OR WHOEVER said THIS OR THAT …
Butler is disappointing. She's prolific scholar but you can see her being indecisive, almost apologetic, when it comes to Israel. You can't solely blame Netanyahu for the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine. Majority of the Israeli society endorses and supports the state's genocide of Palestinians. Again, profound disappointment to see butler being ambiguous and dithering in her condemnation of Israel's genocidal onslaught
@@SvenErik_Lindstrom3 this is from today, November 14: "UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war"
34:10 perhaps for more nuance here, apart from what was mentioned, on a local level this division is deeply tied to self-identity and relationship dynamics, where individuals adopt certain gendered roles within social units that shape their interactions and goals. Additionally, gender differences play also a role in sexual desire, where attraction is often fueled by how closely individuals align with idealized gender representations. Of course, this is not to say that these may be very well external influences of the power structure, such as societal discourses and commercial interests, that shape our understanding of gender-specific behaviors (e.g., beauty standards for women). Ultimately, this division could reflect both a natural tendency based on our perceptions of "differences" historized reinforced by rationalization of underlying power dynamics within gender roles.
Three males with intersex conditions took all the medals in the women's 800 metres at Rio in 2016. That's not fair. The question is whether the competitor went through male puberty. This is obscurantism
It seems like its all theory, feelings & outcome to her which was weird bcus beyond a single sports reference there was no serious effort to consider the physiological hindrances to Trans inclusion in Womens Categories or the impact Trans inclusions in any other area besides sports
I was a Sociology student in the 80s in Australia, an absolute eye opener at the time. Thank you, Judith Butler, for making the terms gender and sex more complicated, it is always a breath of fresh air to listen to you!
41:30 There's the issue that you might be right happy with your sex but if people bring it up you do start wasting your time on investigating a part of your identity that is probably rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Unless there really is nothing left for people to do and we are at the end of history. Of course it's a really important issue to some people regardless and so I tend to say we should be mindful of the downsides of representation too like maybe that's not the best approach to legislative improvements for those people.
1:03:20 Being free to hate is important because who decides? Sure we should socially shun it but it's not for winner-take-all internet platforms let alone the state to decide.
Robinson, don't you think that your program title "Trump vs Harris" etc. grossly limits the electoral equation? Jill Stein gas become a huge alternative to the establishment biases. The Trump/Harris duopolistic singularity is becoming weaker and weaker as the election nears.
If we get caught up in believing these two offer us a choice then we will be stuck in forever wars, and the continuation of chaotic crumbling of society
Jill Stein disappears between elections because she only exists to undermine unified opposition to right wing candidates. Ask why she was seated at a dinner table with Putin and Michael Flynn. Her own campaign has admitted that she exists to prevent a Harris (specifically) victory. You dont have to like either Trump or Harris to recognize she doesnt serve the interest of independent opposition.
Is this asked in the context of you suspecting Jill Stein will stand a reasonable chance at winning the election, or that you wished greater publicity was provided to alternative candidates?
Yeap. Lost me @ 20:00min. To say an accomplished male athlete has less testosterone than a female athlete is wild. Giving controls, saying same age, competing in the same sport, without being a biologist or doctor, I dare say if that does happen it’s extremely rare. To make a generalization like that, is why people have issue with this type of thinking. That is an outlier and not a biological norm. Also, hermaphroditism is extremely rare. I don’t care what you want to call yourself. I don’t believe in discrimination or violence towards people for any reason. But, when you bring sports into conversation there a distinct reality we must recognize. I’m 5’9, almost 39. I’ll never be an NBA player. If you want to compete in sports, compete within your biological sex and competitive groups. Life isn’t fair. Get over it. As someone who spends too much time thinking sometimes. In my perspective, these discussions come from people spending too much time thinking and talking. Some of us don’t have that luxury.
I don’t trust these some of these random peoples ideas that came up last few decades I trust beautiful historic paintings and sculpture and literature and arts of men and women.
Why is she endorsing Harris, and given that this interview was published like two days before the election, I would assume it serves to amplify this message!
@@merg-vh5sx this is just an annoying way of engaging with people, if their question is serious and your response is to scoff and basically just say “catch up” then you don’t actually care about your ideas - u just want to feel better than others
So those men who can’t make the men’s Olympic team, can take some hormones and play on the women’s team. It is neither coherent nor workable. But for Butler, equity and inclusion are imperative, in any and all domains of life. But competitive sports are anything but equal and inclusive, and that indeed is the point.
I guess I’m in the privileged position of not really understanding what much of the gender issue is about but I do appreciate, and have done for a couple of decades (since before the current culture war), Butler’s serious and empathetic approach to ethical issues
That comes from a misunderstanding of Butler's arguments about sexual normativity in modern society. They are actively against pedophilia and rail against it constantly in their book "Who's Afraid of Gender?". The book from which, it appears, the accusation of pedophilia arrives--"Undoing Gender"--was making a much subtler argument that the psychoanalytic analysis associating the incest taboo with heteronormativity and "standard" notions of kinship also disqualifies other "aberrant" sexualities like homosexuality in the same vein as they do pedophilia. They never argued that pedophilia (or, in particular, incest between parent and child) wasn't wrong, and in fact goes out of their way to point out that incest of this fashion involves an exploited child, incapable of providing consent, AND whom is further silenced by preventing them from analyzing the actions that led to it due to this ingrained taboo.
@ it’s not about what Judith says in her utterly boring and intellectually bland book that reminded me of torture . It’s about who Judith “stood up “ for in the nineties. The fact that ya all just now hyped up with gender theory doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before. And the stories they don’t tell you and the research you forget to do while hungerly searching for a new cult leader who can give you the desired definition of you. No Judith is full of shit riding the wave of madness that has nothing to do with feminism . Just a phoney preaching in the safeness of the boudoirs of some prestige university. After Brazil - with a victim badge of honour.
@@birchstudio2900 I spent about 30 minutes to get my facts straight before replying to you, because I wanted to make sure I understood the nature of the allegations levied against them. I've never read a single page of Butler's work before watching this podcast, so it's very funny for you to say I'm "hungerly [sic] searching for a new cult leader". Suffice it to say that I found nothing substantive in the claims and the arguments all appear to stem from a misunderstanding of their book that I mentioned above. Maybe you know more than I do, having apparently followed Butler for the better part of thirty years? Do tell.
True, anti-Zionism doesn’t necessarily mean anti-Semitism, just as anti-immigration doesn’t necessarily imply anti-Latino sentiment, pro-policing doesn’t inherently mean anti-Black, and pro-life advocacy doesn’t necessarily equate to being anti-woman. Similarly, support for traditional gender roles isn’t inherently anti-transgender, and opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t necessarily anti-LGBTQ. Just as there is a nuanced distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, similar distinctions should be made in these other topics as well. If we want to be fair and rational, it’s essential to recognize these nuances across all areas of discourse. However, if one is unwilling to extend the same benefit of the doubt and good-faith understanding to others, it may be unrealistic to expect that same consideration in return.
So, what is your stance on Israel then? Do you support Israels right to exist, and destroy it's enemies who want to destroy them? Do you recognize there are only two s*x*s/genders?
No thanks, I don't care to have a conversation on UA-cam about this topic with someone who has already misquoted me. I didn't say that being anti-equal rights for LGBTQ is not also anti-LGBTQ. Clearly, you already misinterpreted what I said, which a problem. If you couldn't understand my original comment, what hope is there for a reasonable, open-minded conversation.
“Who profits from this system of gender conforming to sex” she didn’t want to say, but her answer was a very roundabout way of saying society. Society profits from gender conforming to sex. We can bite our tongues and tippy toe around what we really mean all day and at the end of the day, we didn’t say what we really meant, neither of us understand what the other truly thinks and we are back at square one. Sex is gender, in cases where a person is intersex, there is a box for them too. I’m sorry it’s not inclusive, but we have bigger problems than Karen trying to figure out her pronouns.
Judith is phenomenal. There is no other way to put it. I am a PhD from Berkeley and a prof at McGill U. The last time I met her she took the time to listen. That's what Judith does. She listens to everyone. Do the same.
Thanks for giving us your CV, so that we now you're an authority 🤦🏽♀️
Was great to hear Judith Butler discuss these topics. Keep doing what you’re doing
This conversation was tough for me to listen to, but I think I needed it. I appreciate your range of guests.
Thanks so much.
May I ask why it was hard and also why it was needed?
@@Shmyrk hard because I don't I think she has good ideas. needed, if I'm going to stand up to these people, I need to know what they're saying
@@grahamjoss4643 That is very true..."Know thine enemy."
I have been so disgusted with the garbage Butler puts out I can't stomach listening to her.
Glad you could.
@@serpentines6356 care to elaborate what the garbage is?
Judging by some of the comments, we need an update on an old play: “Who’s afraid of Judith Butler?”
''Who's impressed by postmodern, unfalsifiable, meaningless dribble?''
Wait, that's too long, let's use : “Who’s afraid of Judith Butler?” instead, you're ''right''.
@ postmodernism is just architecture that came after modernism. No big words needed. Don’t be scared.
I think people want to be justified in their hate and act upon it by stripping freedom from the ones they hate. All the while denying it is hate😢
This may be true, and if it is indeed true then it is incredibly sad! 😢
It used to be considered the people’s court when black men and black sympathizers were strung up, lynched, tarred, or mutilated by hoards in the name of ‘justice’ (usually based on false accusations) …I think it’s objective unless you humanize all, if not then humanity is subject to objectivity
The trans hate of women is intense, and I really wish they would just get their jack boots off the necks of women and tell males to stay the F out of female only spaces and services. I am just tired of the the hateful agenda, and the trans terrorists.
Man you really get the best guests and are clearly curious to learn about subjects you might not be traditionally familiar with. I always appreciate your openness and fluidity in conversations. Thanks again for all your work!
I have always looked up to Judith as a bright intellect with integrity. Great choice of interview. Thank you.
Thanks so much!
@@robinsonerhardt Oh Robinson… I already lost respect for you when you expressed sympathies for Norman Finkelstein. I really wonder how somebody who is familiar with logic can take Judith Butler seriously. Literally every serious philosopher thinks she‘s a complete bullsh!tter. She’s the total opposite of a clear writer.
@@robinsonerhardt There are literally philosophy professors (e.g. Sokal, Bricmont, Hübl) who gave lectures on „bullshit“ and used Judith Butler as an example. She’s well known for her obscurantism and pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
@funckmasta That makes sence.
@@funckmasta that means they must be right. No need to read their actual work and decide for yourself. 👍 That would be too difficult :(
i love this interview! i've been reading judith butler for the longest and love their work!! i appreciate your approach so much, especially your willingness to interview people in areas that you are not the most well versed in and being open learn/discover along the way. also super interesting that judith butler doesn't currently have a theory of gender, and you can both sit together and parse through some of these complex ethical questions without necessarily arriving at a conclusion, but seeking knowledge nonetheless. i appreciate what you do, thank you!!
@@maebellez 'Super interesting' that JB doesn't have a theory of gender?! It doesn't even have a definition and nobody knows what's being talked about. Would be ridiculous and pathetic if it weren't for the fact that this has real world consequences in which a lot of people are getting hurt, amongst other things
@@ebflegg She's what you might call "prize fat". There really isn't much to her if you aren't lulled into her house of smoke and mirrors. She's like a really amazing dingleberry just hanging onto the bottom of our culutre.
I enjoyed this interview very much. I have also learned a lot from her detailed explanation of the complexity of different issues, instead of giving easy answers.
I find it very destructive hogwash.
Religion plays a huge role on people’s thinking, and what they are willing to accept.
Yes, trans religion is a drug.
a philosopher who puts much more emphasis on the question than the answer. not better or worse for it, but you can tell it annoys a lot of people that aren’t familiar with the approach
truthfully, there are times where the aim is more important than the caliber
Indeed. 💯 Alas, this is endemic midst an audience unfamiliar with post-Kantian so-called ‘Continental’ philosophy-and they are of course not to be blamed for that, but who are therefore (even as they are unaware of being) caught in the paradigm of the reigning scientistic ‘logic’ where meaning and knowledge are ‘always’ discursively attainable, contextually transcendent, and akin to mathematics. A few clever types will claim that Butler’s style is all post-modern mumbo jumbo, empty of content. For one thing, this is a deeply ignorant claim, historically speaking, when in fact the limitations of the scientistic approach to the world and its conception of language were already being heavily questioned in the 1790s by figures such as Herder, Hamann, Humboldt, and by many other thinkers since. Her so-called opaque style, in its very approach, solicits us to question our deeply ingrained prejudices about the attainment of meaning, knowledge, and values.
@@EyeByBrian Yep. A bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Just the fact of all this "gender bender" garbage being put onto children is an abuse in my book. It's horrid.
Thank you for your time producing these
This is an amazing channel and kudos on the brilliant guests you have here, even the ones I don’t always agree with, but always thought provoking. This was a specially good interview. ❤
Judith, we adore your work, from Algeria, North Africa
yes we do! (im also algerian)
@lament22 really? that's fantastic. waybe watch her together lol
@@chakib7318 Yes and enjoy the women's boxing
@@ebflegg that amateur boxer in the Olympics is just a tomboy woman, she is not transsexuel or bipolar. and she lost so many times to other amateur women boxers. so please don't take it as a tranny competing against women.
Awesome.
Half the people in the comments don't even know what Butler is talking about and advocates for (and don't even try to understand, nor listen), and the other half came here just to hate on them because they saw them in the thumbnail, while not actually seeing the video.
It's ridiculous, and further proves the point of their new book "Who's afraid of gender" - people don't even know what Butler's arguments are, and they don't even want to know. Anything that could potentially destroy their little world that is filled with their little social boxes, is for them not even worth engaging in...
i feel like i’ve seen a lot of people getting annoyed at butler saying “well there’s no universal theory of gender and all these things are much more complex than what we believe to be true and simple,” by simply doubling down on the ‘truth’ of things they believe to be simple. kinda funny as someone who actually studies this stuff, but also so annoying
I disagreed with her on several points, but I refused to create my own echo chamber, and I appreciate you doing this.
I love Judith Butler. She's such a great and insightful person!
:)
they/them
@@dannydreadnought-xk4qx She said that she accept female pronouns for herself
@@123456789987o But that they prefer they/them.
I've watched this interview twice. The second time was an accident, but I still enjoyed it.
Been getting recommended videos from this channel and watching and enjoying the ones with people I knew before but I made the unfortunate mistake o looking who this Robinson guy is and run into his resume and I never felt this much unaccomplished before. Great interviews btw, keep them coming!
This conversation was illuminating, though I found myself wrestling with the indirect nature of many responses. I wonder if other listeners had a similar experience? As my first time engaging with Judith Butler's ideas and speaking at length (having only encountered their work peripherally before), I was particularly struck by their analysis of Trump's function for certain supporters - how he serves as a kind of figure for particular emotional and ideological investments in leadership, even as this creates tensions with fantastical and unrealistic views of what governance is built on or should maintain in a democratic framework.
Butler's framing of the Harris administration as the "anti-Trump" option was insightful, while acknowledging the need for further development on immigration and Middle East policy - this allowed for more personal understanding of some of my own thinking in this election.
While Butler's discussion touched on psychoanalysis, I found myself wanting more concrete examples of how psychoanalytic theory specifically informs their work on gender. This gap was particularly noticeable when considering theorists like Jean Laplanche, whose ideas about psychic asymmetry and translation seem potentially relevant to understanding gender and sexuality. What struck me was the absence of any discussion about the complex relationship between psychoanalysis as clinical practice versus its academic application. There's a tension here: psychoanalysis operates under specific therapeutic conditions for analysands, yet academics often appropriate these clinical insights for broader social theory and uses - sometimes in ways that might jeopardize its intent and drift from its original therapeutic context. This distinction, seems crucial to me, as an analysand myself for many years now, in which the ethics of how this kind of “practice” and its shared field is to be understood and applied beyond the clinic. None of this was really addressed in the conversation. Perhaps Butler explores this tension more thoroughly in their written work? Or it could just something I think of whenever academics speak about "psychoanalysis."
What struck others about the interplay between psychoanalytic thought and gender theory in this discussion? How did you find Butler's brief focus on melancholy and mourning relating to gender if at all? I know this was a casual conversation but I thought maybe more would be spoken about there.
Thank you for this!
Alex
Interview Shir Hever. He is an Israeli economist who is a coordinator at BDS and argues Israel has major internal social, economic, and military issues the media is not discussing.
great guest, and people have already started crying in the comment section lol
Thanks!! :) :(
How could you not cry when you see someone talking such pseudo-intellectual nonsense? She even called Hamas and Hisbollah allies of the Left. There’s good reason why no serious philosopher takes her seriously.
@@lament22 People only cry over Butler’s pseudo-intellectual bs.
@funckmasta what specifically is pseudo-intellectual bs?
@@lament22 Among many other things, her statement that Hamas and Hisbollah are allies of the political left.
Amazing person .... A true inspiration for thought ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I liked this interview. Great job!
This is excellent.
I'm glad you're liking it!
thanks erhardt and judith!
Sure!
Why does no one who interviews Judith Butler challenge her in any serious way? They never seem to understand the arguments against her ideas on gender and sex, and she ends up saying the same incoherent things every time while the interviewer nods their head in agreement. It is so infuriating. Listen to Kathleen Stock or Holly Lawford-Smith or Alex Byrne to understand how to ask her serious questions. MANY people who disagree with her are not in the least bit right wing. If you believe that, you have no idea who her critics are.
Why do you care about gender dont you have more pressing shit to worry about?
Saving this to look these ppl up
I suspect it’s a political correctness outgoings
Kathleen Stock is an absolute joker, and whatever Butler lacks in clarity and/or coherence, Stock exceeds mightily in ignorance and sheer sloppiness/laziness. I'll check out the other two names though
@@Muzikman127 examples? Butler is an intelectual poser, incoherenct and contradictory in her ideas and acts...
I want to start off by saying that I really do like this channel so far, and have enjoyed the interviews I've listened to. That said, over an hour in to this one, and I have found the discussion so far to disappointingly superficial. On the occasion that the conversation threatened to stray into interesting territory where the guest's ideas might be explored and explicated, Butler came across as evasive and reluctant to say much of anything, and the host really didn't push back.
Judith Butler is one of the most influential and controversial living philosophers/academics out there, and her ideas and approach have certainly been an influence on and inspiration to many. So it's disappointing l that the discussion here really only danced vaguely close to concepts and ideas she puts forward in her work. To be honest I'm not sure much of anything has been said beyond quite banal discussions of politics that you could hear between any undergrads, plus, what, the insight that psychoanalysis is expensive?
I'll admit, I don't understand Butler, or her work, at all. But I'm not arrogant enough to assume that means there isn't value there, it's a shame that a couple of times, when she was asked on some specifics her answer was basically "well, that's very complicated", and then moved on. In Butler's writings and other interviews, it often feels like she takes great pains to avoid concretely saying anything at all, and instead uses a lot of verbiage to produce something so impenetrable it makes up for its own lack of substance. I'm open to the idea that I'm just too ignorant/too much of a dumbass to "get it". But it's a shame that seems to be replicated in her interviews also, where circumlocutions and nigglings over terminology and peripheral details eat up the time and the subject gets lost. Her interview with Novara media was similarly frustrating
There also seems to be some fairly fast and loose of language here too. An hour in and it's really not entirely clear to a listener what it means to describe a politician as "against gender". And that allows certain conflations that aren't justified or even acknowledged (at least, not here). If a politician who is "anti gender" is someone against trans rights, in favor of repression of what are often called gender nonconforming people and/or behaviours, etc., why does it follow from that that "gender" in the sense of gender equality (or, really, women's liberation, which is what is implied here) is inherently a part of that attack? I mean, other than that you can construct your phrasing so that they use the same word if you want to... I mean sure, it's generally true that reactionary forces in society and politics are both anti-LGBTQ and anti-woman, for obvious reasons, but that in and of itself isn't a particularly interesting observation, and it feels like Butler is making a much deeper and grander claim (but which, here, isn't at all justified, or interrogated, or even really explained). So as an answer to the question it seems like something between a cop-out and wordplay
Furthermore, even the term, "anti-gender" which she uses throughout the interview, is never explained. She seems to be using it as a substitute for what people on the right refer to as "anti gender ideology", but why, and what does she mean by it (other than as a little rhetorical flourish to say "actually, nuh-uh, it's *you* who's the ideologue", but I assume it's probably more than that?). Like take an Orban or even moreso a Putin, or even a garden variety religious republican; their whole thing is about men being men, and women being women (that is to say, strong social pressure and even coercion both legal and extrajudicial to maintain strict traditional gender roles). So what is the meaning behind using the term "anti-gender" to describe this, in what sense _is_ that "anti-gender", and what even is meant by "gender" there. I'm entirely open to the idea that Butler has something unique to say about that that would be thought provoking or indeed insightful. But we just didn't get any of that here.
I'll still be watching this channel, that all said. Perhaps you might get a chance to get Butler back on, and actually prod her a little to explain some of her ideas, even if her go-to answer always seems to be "well, that's really complicated". Sure, I'm sure it is, but maybe we could try to at least start to go into it somewhat? It comes across like a defense mechanism to me; Judith, could we maybe take just a little peek at the emperor's gown please? For all I know, it really is glorious (after all, emperors in reality, unlike fables, rarely do wander around in the buff 😄)
Butler did less dancing than this comment.
@@soymoder feel free to outline where if you think I've been indirect or cagey, I don't think I was
@@soymoder or if you just meant "the comment is long" then, ok, guilty as charged I suppose. This is a philosophy channel though, I imagine it's allowed 🙃
Owen Jones is touring America and interviewing Trump voters. He's just dropped a video and honestly it's absolutely wild. The disconnect between what Trump says, and how they describe him is simply mind blowing. Well worth checking out.
Owen Jones is a Far Right MI6 controlled opposition
Brilliant thinker
Thanks for watching!
I notice that many of the comments that express dislike for Butler and their theories do not seem to be able to point to any actual concrete reasoning as to why they dislike their theories or answers. I would be curious to see what someone had to say that has some weight in the critique, rather than just another opinion. I notice that Butler is able to give logos, or reasoning for their logical deductions. However, many of the critics in these comments fail to do so.
Don't worry, it's all pathos, no logos will ever be found in the writings of the most dense but least impressive mind that Butler possesses.
Thanks for showing us the perspective of someone suffering from California normative behavior.
@@lockwood1976 California normative behaviour actually made me laugh out loud.
Judith Butler wrote this lol: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."
That's a perfectly understandable and grammatically sound sentence. This is a ChatGPT summary:
The shift from a structuralist view, where capital is seen as uniformly shaping social relations, to a hegemonic view, where power is seen as flexible and reconfigurable, introduced a focus on temporality in structural theory. This change moved away from Althusser’s idea of fixed structures, highlighting instead the contingent and adaptable nature of hegemony, where power is continuously reshaped through specific, evolving strategies and sites of influence.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@shouter1979😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
She's one of the worst writers ever. It's no secret.
@@shouter1979It's sad when ChatGPT writes better than a human with a PhD.
I was ready to like her and engage in her ideas but why is she so slippery on her theory snd current understanding of gender? If she wrote a book about it recently, she must have a working definiton to offer from which to start.
robinson should have judith and norman finkelstein in the same room lets work it out on the remix
@@eleneakh 😂😂😂
@eleneakh
YES, have the two schizophrenic, islam AND trans friendly, ''tolerant'' '''''thinkers'''''( didn't have enough quotation marks for that one) in a room and be the least representative members of their tribe. ;)
1:15:00 This is the exact same argument made by people like Albert Speer, Hjalmar Schacht, and others during the early years of Nazi regime. They said the exact same thing, like being Nazi doesn't mean you are supporting the policies of Hitler. I think Kellner was didn't even join the Nazi party formally and claimed he was witness to the horrors. I think Hans Scholl and white rose movement was the only voice that resisted the Nazism in Germany, while other intellectuals who were very similar to Judith in their tone and not formal members were also complicit. Though, none of them faced any consequences. Its so astounding how Zionism has rotted the brains of everyone. Creating ethnic apartheid states will lead to fascism no matter how you go about doing it. I love what Judith has written in its context, but her claiming that she hasn't ever heard Gaza is concentration camp is a fine lie. She knows what Israel is doing is a genocide and there will be fallout from this. She is walking a fine line where she says she herself isn't a Zionist and also claims Zionism isn't bad only Netanheyu is. This is a subtle way of supporting the genocide without explicitly saying you support it. War crimes against the Palestinian didn't start in October. its over 75 years old. The original Nakba happened just before the establishment of Israel.
I think we should submit Judith butler and her statement to the accountability archive as well.
i don’t think that’s what she’s saying at all, mainly because she has explicitly written about how ethnostates rely on violence (and gave israel as the main example) and cannot be sustained without that. she has quite clearly expressed opposition to israel in all her work. she never said “zionism isn’t bad only netanyahu is,” as you’ve seemed to hear, merely that reducing zionism as an idea to netanyahu’s government is incredibly reductive and unhelpful.
i do think however, if you are taking a lifelong opponent of israel in action and words to be a zionist because you heard a phrase in an interview and assumed it meant something else, you are not a serious person. she literally said israel’s actions were genocidal in this interview. would highly recommend actually reading what they have to say about israel instead of basing your opinion off a 10 minute interview segment
rotten brains? there is a projection if I ever read one
What......hatred of education? Please......200 million Americans. Is she in her right mind?
I really think that Butler’s ethical turn come at the expense of the radical ontological and epistemological critique that once set her apart.
💯💯💯💯 it sucks, she’s so smart but willing to kowtow
He mirrors the frustration of the disenfranchised class and gives them a strong emotional freedom to express their rage. I shudder to imagine what 4 more years of a Trump "witches brew" will bring.
THE AGNER OF POWER LOST WHAT IS IMPORTAN IS BEYOND THE MATERIAL MARXIST FIGHT
Maybe, but do you figure it is systemically possible enfranchise people under the current system of the US? I ask because I'm not convinced regarding my own country of Norway, that the existing system is fit to actually face the future without some crisis to shake things up. I'm not at all interested in right wing, but when politicians are so comfortable achieving basically nothing, and just protecting the status quo that is a slow extraction of resources from the many to the few, how do we actually get anything done? I don't know that voting is sufficient either, the extracting class has deep influence over the media, and thus they can easily divert meaningful movements, and have us bickering about minute details in our policies, rather than act and course correct as needed.
More like a team to pick. Hard to say he mirrors any frustrations when all that manifests from his and his followers doings is striving toward implementing as many social dividers as possible. Sure this country has problems but it is a silly oversimplification to then come to conclusion that trump was inevitable then due to the issues present. Americans have it easy so they pick a candidate that in no way will benefit their living and pick the whacky guy, and the popular vote is so easily ignored in favor of an unelected electoral college is what led to trump in my opinion
@@Late_not_on_time I think you underestimate how seductive demagogues throughout history are for isolated frustrated powerless people who are desperate for simple narratives to explain their misery. The vast majority of trump supporters are extremely isolated, stressed and disenfranchised people who want all the benefits of community and culture without actually participating in it within the context of their own neighborhoods and communities. They’ve retreated into their homes and jobs and in some cases churches but even most church going community belonging/participating people have little or no interest in the petty narratives of trump.
Both candidates are absolutely shameful and grossly unfit for office. I will vote for the platform that best represents my values.
and just FYI, I wouldn't want to be president for the greatest treasure on earth. Whoever is in office for the next four years is going to bear the blame when everything comes unraveled.
Greetings from brazil 🩷🇧🇷 thank u Judith
I wander how Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics would look at the field of gender, since you have a section on language and gender. Maybe something that can be explored in the future.
Great guest, and likely the most well dressed podcaster of our time. You’re killing it, my brother. ❤u
I cannot possibly be the only person who found the schools of philosophy chat a distraction, and time that could have been better used, can I?
I see the humanities lead to Continental Philosophy, and the natural sciences lead to Analytical Philosophy, honestly makes sense, if the dialectic is anything, it's a scambling machine, refuses to let anything be self stable and linear in progress.
26:00 From the little I know about Anthropology, the question of gender exists in different forms in different cultures. Even what a determined gender means differs. What it means to be a woman changes from culture to culture. I know of one case in which kids have two fathers (who play different roles) - one of them being a maternal uncle.
The notorious JB!
!
?
Wow, how the left sees the right: ‘they want to be free to hate’. The same way you now realize that the right doesn’t believe what Trump says literally, can’t you also see that it doesn’t have anything to do with hate? The left WANTS to believe the right ‘hates’, because it means the left can believe it is on the ‘side of angels’.
It’s really really weird to think the other side ‘wants to hate’. They want to be free, period. That includes the freedom to say things that are uncomfortable and cause others to feel things they might not like. If you cannot understand that that is what freedom is, then I suppose nothing can make you understand.
Suppose my own personal freedoms would oblige it: if I were to keep you trapped in a room for three days without your consent, would you have the right to be upset with me for causing you to "feel things that you might not like"? Would you think that I "hate" you?
To the point: your notion of freedom seems incredibly self-centered.
@ I don’t follow what locking people up for three days has to do with what the left or the right thinks. As for freedom, it doesn’t have anything to do with self centeredness. People must be able to speak their minds. To call bullshit on the dogmas, to be able to speak truth to power. That is freedom.
You'd be amazed at what the right thinks of the left, I don't think it's much more positive. And I don't believe that everyone who holds right wing beliefs holds those beliefs because they are hateful or something but I do think it's a bit true that the more right wing you consciously are, like someone who considers themselves far right, probably does hold a lot of hateful beliefs and falls back onto conservatism/right wing values as a way to be uncritical or to justify said beliefs. And considering most right wing beliefs are exclusionary.. to hold that type of belief in my opinion is to have some implicit hate that you haven't dealt with
@@ktk44man it’s quite dangerous, and a bit silly really to think people who do not see things the way you see them are hateful, or desiring to hate. Dangerous because it reinforces the idea in you that you yourself are ‘good’ or ‘loving’ by contrast. A bit silly, because it’s pretty silly to think all those people ‘must be wrong’, because they see things not your way. Who would flatter themselves that much?
And ‘he did it too’ is not an argument, for this speaker to seriously say what she says about ‘those people wanting to hate’. That is the easiest, most self congratulatory way possible to see things.
@@ktk44man that’s the point really, you see everything in people that do not agree with your worldview as some form of hate. I know that that rethoric has been spewed endlessly, but it is nonsense. There is no ‘desire to hate’ or ‘implicit hate’. You are really fooling yourself if you buy into that. There are lots of reasons why democrats have lost, lots of reasons why people voted for Trump, but it has zero to do with hate. It has to do with what the Democrats stand for these days, the direction they seem to want to go in. You call it inclusion, except it isn’t inclusive, it is only inclusive of the people that agree and align with the crazy.
Judith seemed to enjoy pretending like she didn’t understand your questions and made moments unnecessarily defensive and awkward. In this environment with so much hate and misunderstanding around gender it would’ve been great for this prominent thinker to be a little more generous and warm but I guess she’s sick of talking about it after decades.
I suspect part of it is because one of the goals of post-structuralist philosophy is to challenge our default assumptions about what is normal. A lot of those default assumptions are the kinds of things that get coded into the premise of a question, rather than being the subject of the question itself. It's the old "have you stopped beating your wife?" problem: sometimes the best answer to the question is to challenge the question.
In some cases, I suspect Butler's understanding of gender is so radically different that they *genuinely* didn't think the questions as posed made sense.
@@deadeaded"they" *she
@@deadeaded perhaps, but if that is the case, it would still be nice not to be so very cagey as to what her understanding of gender actually is then.
@@deadeaded And also, sometimes it wasn't that, sometimes the nitpicking really was exactly that. "We come from a culture where gender traditionally has been painted as being a simple binary, why do you think that is, where does that come from in your view?" (paraphrase) is not a tricky question to process. And as one of the leading and most prominent theorists/writers on gender and society, it's much more interesting to at least begin to answer that question, than to niggle around "but what society are we even in, maaan? What even is society, maaan? What do you mean "traditional"?", oh come on!
I know that's a very uncharitable phrasing of it, but it is basically how she engaged with the questions. Like you know what is being asked Judith, it's a jumping off point to discuss what gender is and how it operates, is it really necessary to be shitty about it to a well-meaning interviewer 😅
Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair there, but it did feel a lot like this sometimes, lots of niggling as a sort of offensive defensiveness
@@quinnparle4132 She is the artful dodger. The woman who never grew up turned angry at all of society. It's petulant and gross.
If you hate a person this wise an thoughtful with a beautiful laugh maybe you should wonder if you maybe the bad person.
really, I think she is a weasel, and full of malice.
42:35 I mean there is rapid onset gender dysphoria or maybe there isn't but it sure is being treated as if it existed when girls in their youth suddenly arrive with such conclusions.
I haven't watched this yet, but I must say. Trans women are beautiful and inspiring. The debate over them is toxic and dumb imho
"Trans women are beautiful and inspiring" is just another platitude. Objectively some of them are indeed "beautiful" after many cosmetic procedures. But there is absolutely nothing inspiring about having gender dysmorphia anymore than it's inspiring that my son currently has strep throat
:x
Really? Is Judith actually trans, or just a non-feminine woman?
@@johnbanach3875 You just became toxic and dumb
They can be all of those things and society still have a healthy debate. They key is isolating the bigots from the advocates.
The advocates are usually ppl who are ALSO from marginalized groups & want Trans rights while expressing legitimate concerns & recognizing that before performing Womanhood TransFems were males who have approached Women's space with many demands, a GREAT degree of entitlement & little consideration of impact & outcome towards women
I have a curiosity, why is the gender issue so pressing? As to overshadow other, more critical issues that we're dealing with at the moment?
When societies become stressed and people become isolated and frustrated, it becomes very seductive to have people even less powerful than oneself as a scapegoat so that the establishment can trundle along a little bit more.
It’s at the heart of our identity
Easy scapegoat, religious intersections, deceptively easy topic for pseudointellectuals to feel smart.
that’s why butler had moved away from gender largely, it’s more like when you have a musical guest and they sing their most popular song. she’s been much more concerned with broader issues recently, just not as well known for that
@@soymoder
''deceptively easy topic for pseudointellectuals to feel smart.''
Which is why Butler commercially exploited them by writing books full of non declarative, unfalsifiable ''statements'' for them. :D
Many good points...but
Tricked me! I thought that was Dawkins for a brief moment.
THEY ARE GREAT I LOVE THEM JUDITH
I just won't cry "COME TO BRAZIL" like it's traditional of my people online to do so because
last time we didn't treat Butler so goodly...
Oh Judith. I wish I agreed with you on more than three things. I so badly want to.
Why?
@TDavies-o9w Because I like her and because I want "The Left" to agree broadly. Also I think she has that feeling Kurt Cobain had when he was forced to play Smells Like Teen Spirit into infinity and rednecks started liking it. If we're not careful she may start self-harming.
Roughly 21% of Generation Z Americans who have reached adulthood -- those born between 1997 and 2003 -- identify as LGBT. That is nearly double the proportion of millennials who do so, while the gap widens even further when compared with older generations. What is it if not a fad?
It's becoming more accepted which leads people who may have been scared and hidden to feel safer to come out to the public.
Well they are told the Q in the letter soup, means questioning, so to be truthfull and rebllious and edgy they identify as lgbta.
@@hirschjudy Isn’t basically everyone bisexual more or less? It should be like 80% LGBTQ!😂
33:15 "who is benefitting from this?"
This is the central question, which cannot be understood without diving into the political economy of society. As important as issues of gender, race, and other identities are - their isolated analysis can only tell us how they operate. It doesn't tell us why they operate that way.
Butler replied that she is not opposed to questions of "who benefits?", but that these can skew our analyis. In fact, while It's important to look into questions of gender, race, etc, their operation cannot be understood without understanding the political economy and capitalism (i.e., who benefits)
I'm always intrigued when people who are "not experts" on such subjects are able to pinpoint these central questions. It seems as though central questions are sometimes sidelined by mainstream academia. Therefore, the "non-experts", like you claimed yourself to be, can still ask these questions while to the "academics", these do not occur.
Anyway, I enjoy your interviews. I was introduced to your channel through interviews of Norman Finkelstein. Good inputs in this interview as well. Cheers!
Great, now talk to Nancy Fraser and see what happens. Cheers.
judith butler ❤
Finally someone invited Judith Butler to a "podcast". Respect.
Postmodern simps are truly the saddest. ;)
If liberation is liberation do the means matter when you feel everything is on the line?
Read her book on non-violent resistance. The really excellent one everyone ignores.
Why indeed people believe falsehoods, Judith? For instance about sex, biology, sex differences....I have no idea.
Great example of intelligence not equalling wisdom
Agree
A good example of a noxious small l liberal
And what would be examples of (lack of) "wisdom", according to you?
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia Her inability/ unwillingness to engage with ANY factual definitions, the vague language she uses to baffle easily impressed morons and her lack of fluency when speaking opposed to her ''prolific'' writing are all BIG , BIG red flags.
You're welcome.
@@rocksparadoxGiven that her work deals significantly in presentation, representation, and understanding, are you sure you're just not just refusing to engage with ideas outside of the objective? There's a place for that, for those of us who aren't terrified of ideas outside of the mainstream.
Who are the other people apart from female to get pregnant?
Trans men with wombs for example
I thought she said “women” and then figured “other people” would be “girls”. (But I was also initially confused by her wording and had to figure it out.)
@@chucknorris7448 huh, I answered this question, but the UA-cam auto censor has removed my answer. I'll try again: the answer would be trans men and non binary people with the capability of getting pregnant. It's a small group, but they exist 🙃
@@chucknorris7448 Trans men
Wait, his question was: "Maybe I should ask what your current theory on gender is?" And her answer was: "I don't have one. Sorry, I'm not useful in that way."
I'm genuinely confused. Isn't that her main field?!
Request: Interview Todd McGowan!
As a scholar of Husserl it blows my mind how "analytic philosophers" are oblivious of his work and it's impact on the 20th century - both "continental" and "analytic" philosophy. And it blows my mind regarding the lack of curiosity of analytic types. I've read every single analytic philosopher of note - from Frege to Kit Fine. And then I meet an analytic and they giggle at the very name of Levinas, Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida - the indoctrination in hard core analytic programs is no joke.
Otherwise good stuff as always.
Very good. Thanks Robinson. And Judith.
Isn’t it interesting how Robinson uses this kind of tactic to avoid making a comment that reflects his own view point by resorting to MY FRIEND OR MY PARENTS OR A TEACHER OF MINE OR WHOEVER said THIS OR THAT …
I've always liked Mr Butler. He's a brilliant speaker and fights hard for women's rights.
My man! Lol
"He"? JUDITH is a she.
Same...ROFLMAO
Butler is disappointing. She's prolific scholar but you can see her being indecisive, almost apologetic, when it comes to Israel. You can't solely blame Netanyahu for the Zionist state's genocide in Palestine. Majority of the Israeli society endorses and supports the state's genocide of Palestinians.
Again, profound disappointment to see butler being ambiguous and dithering in her condemnation of Israel's genocidal onslaught
How is it a genocide?
@@SvenErik_Lindstrom3 this is from today, November 14: "UN Special Committee finds Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza consistent with genocide, including use of starvation as weapon of war"
34:10 perhaps for more nuance here, apart from what was mentioned, on a local level this division is deeply tied to self-identity and relationship dynamics, where individuals adopt certain gendered roles within social units that shape their interactions and goals. Additionally, gender differences play also a role in sexual desire, where attraction is often fueled by how closely individuals align with idealized gender representations. Of course, this is not to say that these may be very well external influences of the power structure, such as societal discourses and commercial interests, that shape our understanding of gender-specific behaviors (e.g., beauty standards for women). Ultimately, this division could reflect both a natural tendency based on our perceptions of "differences" historized reinforced by rationalization of underlying power dynamics within gender roles.
Three males with intersex conditions took all the medals in the women's 800 metres at Rio in 2016. That's not fair. The question is whether the competitor went through male puberty. This is obscurantism
Why isn't it fair? Born with vagina means woman.
Obscurantism seems to be Butler's stock in trade.
@@peteunderdown6889 Yes quite!
It seems like its all theory, feelings & outcome to her which was weird bcus beyond a single sports reference there was no serious effort to consider the physiological hindrances to Trans inclusion in Womens Categories or the impact Trans inclusions in any other area besides sports
What does intersex conditions mean?
I was a Sociology student in the 80s in Australia, an absolute eye opener at the time. Thank you, Judith Butler, for making the terms gender and sex more complicated, it is always a breath of fresh air to listen to you!
I,m 10min in and nothing yet at all related to the videos given description.
41:30 There's the issue that you might be right happy with your sex but if people bring it up you do start wasting your time on investigating a part of your identity that is probably rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Unless there really is nothing left for people to do and we are at the end of history. Of course it's a really important issue to some people regardless and so I tend to say we should be mindful of the downsides of representation too like maybe that's not the best approach to legislative improvements for those people.
A brilliant woman of both conscience and intellect.
Wrong on all counts.
I like what the term "fascist passions", to distinguish from a fascist state. Very perceptive.
1:03:20 Being free to hate is important because who decides? Sure we should socially shun it but it's not for winner-take-all internet platforms let alone the state to decide.
Also fascism does not come from fascist passions of course. Let's leave the self flagellation with Saint Augustine's branches of Christianity.
Robinson, don't you think that your program title "Trump vs Harris" etc. grossly limits the electoral equation? Jill Stein gas become a huge alternative to the establishment biases. The Trump/Harris duopolistic singularity is becoming weaker and weaker as the election nears.
If we get caught up in believing these two offer us a choice then we will be stuck in forever wars, and the continuation of chaotic crumbling of society
He intentionally writes things like that. He wants to have mainstream guests and become popular so he has to play along with the system.
Jill Stein disappears between elections because she only exists to undermine unified opposition to right wing candidates. Ask why she was seated at a dinner table with Putin and Michael Flynn. Her own campaign has admitted that she exists to prevent a Harris (specifically) victory. You dont have to like either Trump or Harris to recognize she doesnt serve the interest of independent opposition.
@@End_Zionism That might have worked 10 or 20 years ago. But not today. Besides. That sounds a little pretentious to me.
Is this asked in the context of you suspecting Jill Stein will stand a reasonable chance at winning the election, or that you wished greater publicity was provided to alternative candidates?
Yeap. Lost me @ 20:00min. To say an accomplished male athlete has less testosterone than a female athlete is wild. Giving controls, saying same age, competing in the same sport, without being a biologist or doctor, I dare say if that does happen it’s extremely rare. To make a generalization like that, is why people have issue with this type of thinking. That is an outlier and not a biological norm. Also, hermaphroditism is extremely rare. I don’t care what you want to call yourself. I don’t believe in discrimination or violence towards people for any reason. But, when you bring sports into conversation there a distinct reality we must recognize. I’m 5’9, almost 39. I’ll never be an NBA player. If you want to compete in sports, compete within your biological sex and competitive groups. Life isn’t fair. Get over it. As someone who spends too much time thinking sometimes. In my perspective, these discussions come from people spending too much time thinking and talking. Some of us don’t have that luxury.
I don’t trust these some of these random peoples ideas that came up last few decades I trust beautiful historic paintings and sculpture and literature and arts of men and women.
Why is she endorsing Harris, and given that this interview was published like two days before the election, I would assume it serves to amplify this message!
Why are you questioning who to endorse.
What in the WORLD is the intro music bro. Let me make you a fire intro track
For some, religion is a first attempt at philosophy.
She's beautiful. It's a shame people like her don't "run' the world
You used the wrong pronoun
@@peteunderdown6889😂
They's beautiful. It's a shame people like them don't "run" the world.
People aren't afraid of gender. They just object to replacing sex with this nebulous concept.
Biological sex is the ultimate "nebulous" concept
what do you mean "replacing sex" ?
@@craigash189If your question is serious you're about 30 years behind the rest of us and need to start reading before you say anything else.
@@merg-vh5sx your response is motivated by fear
@@merg-vh5sx this is just an annoying way of engaging with people, if their question is serious and your response is to scoff and basically just say “catch up” then you don’t actually care about your ideas - u just want to feel better than others
More Noam Chomsky
If only...
It's up to all of us now to be our own Noam in his honour.. this was an amazing interview
So those men who can’t make the men’s Olympic team, can take some hormones and play on the women’s team. It is neither coherent nor workable. But for Butler, equity and inclusion are imperative, in any and all domains of life. But competitive sports are anything but equal and inclusive, and that indeed is the point.
I guess I’m in the privileged position of not really understanding what much of the gender issue is about but I do appreciate, and have done for a couple of decades (since before the current culture war), Butler’s serious and empathetic approach to ethical issues
Her statements on Israel, Zionism and Politics of the Diaspora Jews were very astute!
I think you mean ass toot
This is the person that was not against pedofilia right? No matter the words - once you think that’s ok you are done .
That comes from a misunderstanding of Butler's arguments about sexual normativity in modern society. They are actively against pedophilia and rail against it constantly in their book "Who's Afraid of Gender?". The book from which, it appears, the accusation of pedophilia arrives--"Undoing Gender"--was making a much subtler argument that the psychoanalytic analysis associating the incest taboo with heteronormativity and "standard" notions of kinship also disqualifies other "aberrant" sexualities like homosexuality in the same vein as they do pedophilia. They never argued that pedophilia (or, in particular, incest between parent and child) wasn't wrong, and in fact goes out of their way to point out that incest of this fashion involves an exploited child, incapable of providing consent, AND whom is further silenced by preventing them from analyzing the actions that led to it due to this ingrained taboo.
@ it’s not about what Judith says in her utterly boring and intellectually bland book that reminded me of torture . It’s about who Judith “stood up “ for in the nineties. The fact that ya all just now hyped up with gender theory doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before. And the stories they don’t tell you and the research you forget to do while hungerly searching for a new cult leader who can give you the desired definition of you. No Judith is full of shit riding the wave of madness that has nothing to do with feminism . Just a phoney preaching in the safeness of the boudoirs of some prestige university. After Brazil - with a victim badge of honour.
@@birchstudio2900 I spent about 30 minutes to get my facts straight before replying to you, because I wanted to make sure I understood the nature of the allegations levied against them. I've never read a single page of Butler's work before watching this podcast, so it's very funny for you to say I'm "hungerly [sic] searching for a new cult leader".
Suffice it to say that I found nothing substantive in the claims and the arguments all appear to stem from a misunderstanding of their book that I mentioned above. Maybe you know more than I do, having apparently followed Butler for the better part of thirty years? Do tell.
judith butler i love you! ❤️
True, anti-Zionism doesn’t necessarily mean anti-Semitism, just as anti-immigration doesn’t necessarily imply anti-Latino sentiment, pro-policing doesn’t inherently mean anti-Black, and pro-life advocacy doesn’t necessarily equate to being anti-woman. Similarly, support for traditional gender roles isn’t inherently anti-transgender, and opposition to same-sex marriage isn’t necessarily anti-LGBTQ. Just as there is a nuanced distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, similar distinctions should be made in these other topics as well. If we want to be fair and rational, it’s essential to recognize these nuances across all areas of discourse. However, if one is unwilling to extend the same benefit of the doubt and good-faith understanding to others, it may be unrealistic to expect that same consideration in return.
Well said
So, what is your stance on Israel then?
Do you support Israels right to exist, and destroy it's enemies who want to destroy them?
Do you recognize there are only two s*x*s/genders?
I’ll bite. How is being anti gay marriage not anti gay? Or how is being anti equal rights for LGBTQ not also anti LGBTQ?
No thanks, I don't care to have a conversation on UA-cam about this topic with someone who has already misquoted me. I didn't say that being anti-equal rights for LGBTQ is not also anti-LGBTQ. Clearly, you already misinterpreted what I said, which a problem. If you couldn't understand my original comment, what hope is there for a reasonable, open-minded conversation.
👏
“Who profits from this system of gender conforming to sex” she didn’t want to say, but her answer was a very roundabout way of saying society. Society profits from gender conforming to sex. We can bite our tongues and tippy toe around what we really mean all day and at the end of the day, we didn’t say what we really meant, neither of us understand what the other truly thinks and we are back at square one.
Sex is gender, in cases where a person is intersex, there is a box for them too. I’m sorry it’s not inclusive, but we have bigger problems than Karen trying to figure out her pronouns.
actually, you do not talk about the new book 😂
She is by far the worst philosopher of our times. No serious philosopher takes her seriously.
I think they have interesting ideas. I agree with none of them. But they're still interestingly articulated.
lmao your subscriptions speak for themselves, you are the person who is not taken seriously
@@lament22 mine or his?
@@RachManJohn his, just look at them yourself (if youre on mobile, click on his pfp)
@@lament22 There are literally philosophy professors who give lectures on „bullshit“ and use Judith Butler as an example. I‘m serious.
TRUMP ❤️