Grace Lavery / Joseph Lavery & Daniel M. Lavery / Mallory Ortberg - "Straight with extra steps" couple trooning out to avoid "dwindling into mere heterosexuality"

Joe narrowed his position here, he stuck the loophole "does not harm students" at the very end to make it mildly distinct from Stock's position (as said by Joe) with the giant caveat that Joe alone will determine what does and does not "harm" students, but in the course of it allowed for Stock and other transphobes to misgender him (and any other non-student) while being protected by academic freedom.

Note too that Joe has written his position in a way to least trouble himself as he no longer really interacts with students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Enwerdhoeven
Joe's Twitter is totally unreadable. He's given up hot takes in favor of word salad arguing that Judith Butler doesn't write word salad.

Prof-Grace-Lavery-on-Twitter-people-have-told-me-they-think-i’m-making-this-up-but-no-Prof-Kat...pngF0E39-SWIAEApWp.jpgProf-Grace-Lavery-on-Twitter-people-have-told-me-they-think-i’m-making-this-up-but-no-Prof-Kat...pngF0HiGLvWYAIIMVf.jpgProf-Grace-Lavery-on-Twitter-people-have-told-me-they-think-i’m-making-this-up-but-no-Prof-Kat...pngF0HiUY6XwAA6ZiJ.jpgF0HiUY4XoAA4VsU.jpgF0HiUY-XoAAzHLr.jpgF0HiUX-WIAA1sc-.jpg
https://twitter.com/graceelavery
people have told me they think i’m making this up, but no, Prof. Kathleen Stock really does conflate “performative” with “is a performance.” a mistake that undergraduates often make, but rarely publish. this is MATERIAL GIRLS (London: Fleet, 2021).
https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1675682665947643905/photo/1
9:47 PM · Jul 2, 2023 · 429.5K Views



here’s Butler explaining the error in very plain language in 1993. n.b.: “there is no subject who decides on its gender.”

10:09 AM · Jul 3, 2023 · 17.2K Views

and here is Butler yet again explaining the method of GT in very simple language, in 1999:

10:10 AM · Jul 3, 2023 · 13.7K Views


the anti-postmodernism crowd likes to insult Butler’s prose. ppl have been doing it for decades, and it’s so annoying. Butler is one of the clearest, sharpest, funniest, and most elegant prose stylists in critical theory. one thousand pages of Butler > one page of Adorno.

10:12 AM · Jul 3, 2023 · 13.7K Views


A random sampling of the replies.

De-Confederate-Austin-on-Twitter-graceelavery-Is-this-as-opposed-to-the-prior-theory-according...pngDe-Confederate-Austin-on-Twitter-graceelavery-I-m-not-sure-how-to-read-this-as-anything-but-an...pngDe-Confederate-Austin-on-Twitter-graceelavery-I-m-not-sure-how-to-read-this-as-anything-but-an...png

Theorist mind poison.

This is the most intelligible (not intelligent) thing he's tweeted lately.

Prof-Grace-Lavery-on-Twitter-i-can’t-stop-thinking-about-how-the-author-of-a-series-of-boardin...png
 
Last edited:
Perfect example of the motte-and-bailey method, Joe even pulled it to defend someone else's motte-and-bailey.

Also liked the damning with faint praise aspect of Joe "complementing" Butler by calling her the "clearest, funniest, etc." writer stylist in critical theory.
 
Joe's Twitter is totally unreadable. He's given up hot takes in favor of word salad arguing that Judith Butler doesn't write word salad.
Absolutely unreadable. I’ve been waiting for someone else to update on this Butler/ Stock BS because it made no sense beyond the obvious, which is simply that he really hates Kathleen Stock. (Isn’t she the one who was going to debate him, but he pulled out, afraid, around a year ago?) Joe invents things to criticize her with. Use of “performance,” has to be one of the worst excuses I’ve seen from him, very lazy, despite his nine circles of word salad. Recently came across this panel of Nancy, and it immediately made me think of Joe.
9E10C924-984E-4BEB-BB8D-08351C0A4BEF.jpeg
(That kid w/ the glasses is asking Nancy if she wants to go get a soda pop with him.)
 
A couple more for everyone's spank bank:
Screenshot_20230701-140634.pngScreenshot_20230314-180211.pngScreenshot_20230331-152020.pngScreenshot_20230524-152651.pngScreenshot_20230331-152335.pnghappypride.jpg

Someone's gettin' sued for illegal terfery!
Screenshot_20230516-062254.png

And a few of Mallory who went on tour in Australia and New Zealand?!?!?!
mal3.jpgmal4.jpgmal2.jpg

Mallory went to Aus/NZ alone, obviously. Joe and Lily had better things to do:
356278581_983348662907673_1589796406389550003_n.jpgjoelil2.jpgjoeandlil.jpg

If only you knew how bad things really are:
mal1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Absolutely unreadable. I’ve been waiting for someone else to update on this Butler/ Stock BS because it made no sense beyond the obvious, which is simply that he really hates Kathleen Stock. (Isn’t she the one who was going to debate him, but he pulled out, afraid, around a year ago?) Joe invents things to criticize her with. Use of “performance,” has to be one of the worst excuses I’ve seen from him, very lazy, despite his nine circles of word salad. Recently came across this panel of Nancy, and it immediately made me think of Joe.
View attachment 5196416
(That kid w/ the glasses is asking Nancy if she wants to go get a soda pop with him.)
He was supposed to debate Helen Joyce, author of Trans. Stock wrote Material Girls; they're similar subjects and came out at roughly the same time. But I think he was shopping around for different debaters before Joyce and him agreed.

I reckon he has the biggest rage boner against Stock because they are both academics, so he feels like he can get some leverage over her by appealing to academic protocols. He loves pretending like grad students can never be criticized because it sets him up as their whiteknight against all those meanie lesbian professors who don't agree with them.

This is an interesting article specifically about his beef with her:
link | archive

I forgot he tried to cause an international incident by trying to sever Berkeley's ties to the University of Sussex just because Stock taught there and was (gasp!) supported by the administration when mobs tried to hound her out.
 
View attachment 5200234
Why would you pay 800 bucks for boots that look like they were made out of leftover parts of other shoes?
...and why would you style them with a stretched-out t-shirt and dog-hair-covered sweatshorts?

I love how these fucktards think they're into "fashion":
malcaption.PNG
malcaption3.PNG
malcaption2.PNG

(Though to be fair to Mallory, Joe's look is actually working for him here.)
 
So Mallory/Daniel is responsible for their documented fashion travesties? Guh, horrible.

And Joe is looking extra-fat these days. Un-pretty, at any gender.

View attachment 5201611
View attachment 5201613
Sorry for my confusing posting, those super fat pics of Joe are from about a year ago, for some reason either Lily posted them recently or I found them recently. He definitely seems a bit slimmer these days.

From Instagram stories:
xalpage.PNG
 
The "language is performative" thing is nonsense and always has been.

"Performative" functions of language require, at their root, authority. They are about power.

Consider a few of the commonly cited examples of performative speech. "I hereby revoke all previous wills." "I do" (in context of a marriage ceremony). "Welcome to our home, do come in." These are performative, so Butler says, because they actually "change reality" via their utterance. You do revoke previous wills. You are now married. The person you have welcomed is now well-defended against accusations of trespass. And so on.

What Butler (and Austin) absolutely fail to engage with is all done by a creative bit of linguistic shifting. They say the language "affects the world."

It does not. It cannot.

The language itself does nothing, it is sounds. It has an impact because of the power behind it, most typically the power of law enforced by a strong government and police.

When he talks about conditions being "felicitous or infelicitous," this is a polite fiction diverting attention. What these "happy" words deflect from is the colder, starker reality that "felicitous" exercise of "performative language" requires men with guns standing behind it. You are married or revoke your will by the power of the state. You welcome someone to your home by the power of your family, backed by the power of the state that will send an armed escort to take you off the property if your welcome status changes.

"Performative" utterances are performative through force.

When they claim gender is performative, this is what they are hiding. It can only exist in the way they view it by enforcing it at the point of a gun.
 
Back