At this stage your unilateral edits -- against all Wikipedia etiquette and policies -- are verging on vandalism. And her criticism of Butler, while a litte bit on the capricious side, at least says something about the actual academic work of Butler.
In the highly unlikely event Dutton becomes notable enough to merit a substantative WP article, should we search for the worst run-on sentence he ever wrote, and insist it be included in his article Try busking them alongside a magician who has been doing it for 10 years, earning their living.
And why are you warning me. Her argument went like this: It pisses me off for a homphobe to stick "lesbian" as the third word of this bio—or a while back when a neo-Nazi added "Jewish" as the third word. If this is just about the "lesbian writers" category, leave the damn thing.
Between the two metaphors, hagiography biography of saints is a lot closer to what we should strive for Fry is a physicist struggling to make clear the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
I think the general point is what Nussbaum calls "willful obscurity" applies to that sentence in or out of context, and thus, the general point of the difficulty of finding meaning in it again, meaning in language, Butler would disapprove.
Common sense often stops us rethinking these assumptions: The rebellion and its reprimand seemed to be caught up in the same terms, a phenomenon that gave rise to my first critical insight into the subtle ruse of power: Therefore, I am restoring my alternative interpretation to establish provisional NPOV in your new "criticisms" section.
Two points in response here. On the contrary, that prehistory interrupts the story I have to give of myself, makes every account of myself partial and failed, and constitutes, in a way, my failure to be fully accountable for my actions, my final "irresponsibility," one for which I may be forgiven only because I could not do otherwise.
Interestingly, though, she did see fit to respond to her award in a surprisingly lucid article in the New York Times. I visited it and fail to see why it would be authoritative in any way, and not merely the kind of unreflexive speculation about assumed identities that Butler would herself not condone.
Ideas, images, and words had to be examined, and so were the very standards of examination themselves. I mention them only as a guide to what a proper academic bio looks like.
Destrorying the summaries editors have provided is completely counter-productive. I fixed up the cite on Lingua Francafor example.
Let people judge it objectively. He is a white man. Plenty of people have changed the way we see the world by using language simply and effectively; by telling surprising stories or using ordinary words in extraordinary contexts.
Ordinary language, in other words, reinforces the assumptions and premises that underlie those abominations. There are no neutral politics. The writer also debates our notions of "human" and "less-than-human" and how these culturally imposed ideas can keep one from having a "viable life" as the biggest concerns are usually about whether a person will be accepted if his or her desires differ from normality.
Instead she argues for an ethics based precisely on the limits of self-knowledge as the limits of responsibility itself.
Nonetheless, we need to get the fact evidenced in the article itself to obey WP: The prevailing law threatened one with trouble, even put one in trouble, all to keep one out of trouble.
You cannot be the only one advocating for this change. Tell what specific sentences are problematic for you, and I will fix them or offer more complete defense of what they are saying. This is just ridiculous.
It has nothing to do with Butler or her ideas, and is only relevent to the group of individuals who are involved in that culturally conservative publication.
This is why I suggested maybe a series of quotes from Butler. Please, please remedy this in future comments. Note the cross-purposes, though. Could German Idealism be held accountable for Nazism.
The verbal crust must be broken up and broken down. Again, the self-compliment is extraordinary, whereby elite professors of the 21st century are somehow analogous to abolitionists in and suffragettes in The critique section on the postmodernism page is HUGE, and rightfully so.
The vatic tone and phony technicality can also serve to elevate a trivial subject. This seems on better grounds than the neo-Nazi editors who go around adding "Jewish" to the first sentence of lots of articles of people who may or may not be Jewishas happened to the Butler article.
Jul 21, · Judith Butler and the Bad Writing Award Hat tip Minding the Campus and See Thru EDU The English language reportedly has one million words, but the average English speaker only uses about ten thousand of them.
What makes bad writing bad? Bad writing is almost always a love poem addressed by the self to the self. The person who will admire it first and last and most is the writer herself. Bonus: Take your writing up a notch.
For tips delivered directly to your inbox for free, click here. The difference between good writers and bad writers has little to do with skill. It has to do with perseverance. Bad writers quit. Good writers keep going. scholars as Gayatri Spivak.2 Indeed, she won the annual “Bad Writing Award” from the journal Philosophy and Literature.
Butler responded, in a letter to the. The case of the Bad Writing Contest: Literary theory as commodity and literary theorists as brands Eli Thorkelson Paper presented at Michicagoan, May given to Butler, across magazines, journals, the internet, metamorphosis underlying the Bad Writing Contest.
Judith Butler, a Guggenheim Fellowship-winning professor of rhetoric and comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, admired as perhaps “one of the ten smartest people on the planet,” wrote the sentence that captured the contest’s first prize.
The Bad Writing Contest attempts to locate the ugliest, most.Bad writing award butler