I wouldn’t call it learned through habit, more like social conditioning that once served an evolutionary purpose.

To add a more modern analogy, it’s like how we develop machine learning AI, you feed it a BUNCH of data and try to make it sort it. That sorting is done by pre-defined algorithms, which means, that there are going to be expected parameters.

Humans are born, though thousands of years of genetics, with pre-defined algorithms on how we should interpret gender. Those gender roles may have had a use in the past but, they don’t now.

Butler basically would say, we need to have new data sets throw at our programming to break the pre-defined algorithms.

Also, I don’t think butler would say that gender roles are bad, just limiting(the major feminist criticism of her work comes from how to deal with trans people, as her model kinda ignores them)

Yesss exactly, because many people point to butler as the godmother of wokeism.

And if I remember correctly, her philosophy often was more descriptive and and deconstructionist. Just point out how gender is perceived and who it works in Western society.

I think the only recommendations she gives is more exploratory. About how we can look individuals that don’t act in the binary and try understand their gender role

Not surprising, her work is kinda hard to read, so most people will get the work explained to them. And that explaining often will miss small crucial details that tie her theory together.

Her logic is like walking in a tight rope, it has to be perfectly balanced otherwise you fall off and miss the point

I haven’t read the academic paper, for those that have. How does he deal with the autonomy to harm oneself? To actively make decisions, rational or non-rational, that will cause harm to your person.

Furthermore, what about intervention when someone is say, about to get scammed? About to join a known cult? Behaviors that are 100% destructive, how do they contend with that?

I'm glad we agree that the logic of the nazi's was flawed.

I was making an analogy and representing what Nazi's thought, I was not advocating for it. Reading comprehension is important you know?

Please read: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt. Then you will understand what I am trying to do. Maybe.

Based off your article, I feel like you have a disconnect between characterization and the banality of evil.

Just because a character is relatable doesn't make their evil paltry. Thanos is evil and his actions are in no way paltry. We understand why he's doing it, and it seems reasonable and he can justify it. We understand that justification, but the result and method are undoubtedly evil. Which makes his actions even scarier because he's thought it through and done the calculus.

I am bringing up the Nazis, sorry, but they provide the best analog to real life and thanos. The nazi's had strong justification for their genocide, they were making the world a better place, like Thanos. Individual Nazi's can be relatable, like its recorded that the Nazi's were "normal" and relatable at a personal level. But committed horrendous crimes. Can you say that the Holocaust was paltry, because we can relate to those that perpetrated it? Because from the view of the Nazi's their actions were justifiable? That they had a "good" reason to kill jews? Hell no.

Another example is Ed Kemper, he was extremely well liked, had a good "character," too him, and made friends with guards and cops. He also had a justification for his actions. Yet was his evil paltry?

Also, you seem to be making an ends justify the means argument with Thanos, which....eh? You want to go down that road?

Thanos' plan is downright evil. You take any system, deontology, utilitariasm, virtue ethics, etc. He's evil, not just his "indiscriminate killing," but all his actions to get to his goal of mass genocide for the "greater good"