Good point, kid, and here’s another one: those toys you want me to buy you are a social construct. Playtime? Yep. Social construct. Shall I keep going? Video games are next.
Some social constructs serve a purpose.
I like Max Stirner’s perspective. Like you said, they can be useful - but we can also give them too much authority over us. It’s important to be aware of that.
Yeah, fuck socks! They don’t own me!
Exactly! “Boys” socks, “girls” socks, no - my socks.
Why are socks gendered.
Exactly!
Exactly. Money is a useful construct, but if you look at everything associated with it it’s insane. A tool for tracking the value of goods and services has resulted in wall street, crypto currency, and people burying gold in their yards. It’s become a status symbol to hold this placeholder for labor without doing labor.
I’m not necessarily on board with a moneyless society anytime soon, but I am definitely currency critical.
Currency is an excellent example.
Groups or organizations are another.
Yeah!
Mammals are a social construct. They still serve a purpose.
What matters is what purpose they serve. Not many people are opressed by the concept of mammals.
everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???
my issue is that even though “clothing” is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming “clothed” is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn’t exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.
It’s kinda sad, i guess. I’m usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?
Socks are not a social construct.
Social constructs are Social constructs
true
Social constructs aren’t practical.
Not hitting dumdums on the head with a hammer whenever they say something silly is a social construct.
Hitting dumdums on the head with a hammer when they do could also be a social construct.
The usefulness of either method might be disputed by some but that there is practical social and individual value in not being murdered for a bad take should be obvious.
The criticism of “that’s just a social construct” is not that it is one and is therefore meaningless, but that being a construct means it could be flawed.
Socks serve a practical purpose when combined with shoes. They prevent rubbing (blisters) and they keep the skin cells and oils from your feet from the insides of your shoes.
Shoes serve a practical purpose in that they protect your feet from rocks, glass, and hot pavement. Did our ancestors need shoes? No. But humans have made our environments less friendly to bare feet
Our ancestors DID need shoes. Footprints in South Africa dated to be between 75K and 136K years old show footwear in use. We invented shoes possibly 100,000 years before we invented written language.
Do they show shoes or do they show sandals?
Normally not a big difference, footwear is footwear. But, if we’re talking about socks, then the difference becomes relevant again.
Undetermined. Just the bottom of the shoes made an imprint.
I’m betting crocs.
I’m giggling at the idea of ancient people’s wearing socks with Crocs, but I can’t help but feel that clogs specifically might leave a different footprint.
What are you talking about? The oldest shoe we’ve found is roughly 10000 years old.
Our ancestors absolutely needed shoes. That’s why they made them.
It’s really social norms, not anything else. There are probably more sharp and pointy things in the wilderness, then where we walk day to day.
My dream would be able to walk around the office barefoot and have it not even be considered weird.
Hookworm infections are definately in decline due to wearing shoes. Ill take shoes over hookworms.
I don’t think anyone’s feet would enjoy walking on asphalt at noon at 35°+
Plus people who lived in the wilderness famously had long lives
Not really. Socks used to be the layer of what you wore first if needed, and then wrapped your feet in animal skins as the extra outer layer we would now consider “shoes.” Shoes and socks were just sort of a combined foot bag/bundle for thousands of years, and many cultures developed socks and/or shoes independently, meaning they are not a social construct if numerous cultures are inventing them for practical purposes.
I would encourage you to take a hike through Greenland barefoot and come back to me with the “humans have made our environment less friendly to bare feet” line. It is, for the most part, the exact opposite that is the case. Nature is not friendly to bare feet in the slightest hence why humans have been wearing shoes long before recorded history.
The natural world is pretty unfriendly to bare feet, too.
Feet will naturally build up thick, tough, resilient calluses in natural environments. There have been some interesting studies done on this topic with indigenous groups.
Which indigenous groups don’t wear shoes? Genuinely curious. In North America, moccasins are pretty well-known. I understand that part of the need stems from climate though. I’m more curious about what terrain an indigenous group might live in that can be safe to live barefoot.
Reminds me of the time I saw people arguing on Reddit about the phrase “time is a social construct” where some people were completely incapable of understanding what that means and conflating the concept of time with the fundamental physics thingymcgee (idk how to call it and entity feels wrong).
People were trying so hard to explain that minutes, months, seasons, etc. are all arbitrary things made up only for them to retort with “but a year is a full rotation of the sun” or “seasons exist because that’s how the planet changes its climate”.
the fundamental physics thingymcgee (idk how to call it and entity feels wrong)
Your not wrong, “thingymcgee” is the technical term but it’s still a social construct just like gravity.
One can argue everything we know is a social construct
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_science)
Even social media posts, according to postconstructivism
It is a social construct, and we live in a society… so put your damn socks on
'Your allowance is a social construct, so I guess we won’t be doing that anymore…"
Having a shit is a natural process, however doing it privately in toilets is nowadays somewhat of a social construct.
So, should I stop using the toilet and use your bed instead?(Edit: I didn’t think I needed to add an /s but…)
Not accepting every social construct isn’t the same as rejecting every social construct.
You could’ve just said, “please shit in my bed.”
This is a counter, specifically, to " because it is a social construct, therefore I won’t do it."
It’s more nuanced. It’s ‘this is a social construct, therefore I can just decide whether I want to accept it, and I dont’
Except in this example, it’s a kid using the argument to get out of “anything and everything”. This isn’t a necessarily a nuanced situation, this is using their own logic against them because they think they found a cheat code to not doing what they don’t want to do.
Ah fair! I wasn’t super clear, I was more talking about my comment than the original post.
Don’t tell that to your kid unless you want them to start pooping in your bed.
Ha, I’ve had that happen when our kids were little yet didn’t think of that at all. Thanks for making me laugh and bringing back the nightmare of the midnight pooper 🤣
With the added /s it still reads like you’re using an example to explain why things shouldn’t be rejected based on them being social constructs. The edit just reads like you’re smug about it. If that’s not what you’re saying, can you explain what you mean?
can you explain what you mean?
Yes.
Nah, use the designated shitting street just like everyone else
Not that I advocate violence, but not beating your kids, selling them on the street, or making them work in a factory is also a social contract.
Contract yes, as it pertains to laws, but I would argue construct no- since protecting one’s offspring is a natural/biological impulse. It’s non negotiable from a survival viewpoint, and some people have better survival instincts than others.
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Let’s not bring Elon into this.
Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.
This is a weird conversation.
That’s because you had a bad take that illogically separates the biological demands of organisms and their communities from aspects of social organization
There is no separation, social behaviors are also adaptations to the environment.
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn’ do it, doesn’t mean it’s not “natural”. I don’t know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they’d act like waking up to the sun is THE “natural” thing.
Are you suggesting that if even one human lacks this biological impulse to protect their children, we can’t say that humans generally have a biological impulse to protect their children? That’s absurd. And isn’t this point entirely moot with regards to people who do have that in-built instinct?
I’m saying it is not “non negotiable”.
We as creatures behave certain ways because of a result of biology and circumstances. How can you say anything we do isn’t a natural/biological impulse. When did we stop being a part of nature? And stop being controlled by biology?
I let my kid go all flower child about the socks. he got athletes foot. Socks SPECIFICALLY are not a social construct. they prevent athletes foot.
Hygiene IS a social construct, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there for a good reason.
Exactly. Not all social constructs are bad.
Hygiene is not a construct regardless. I swear people just go on the internet and say things.
I’d say hygiene is a construct. From that wiki article:
As mind-dependent objects, concepts that are typically viewed as constructs include the abstract objects designated by such symbols as 3 or 4, or words such as liberty or cold as they are seen as a result of induction or abstraction that can be later applied to observable objects or compared to other constructs.
With this in mind, hygiene itself cannot be seen directly, and thus abstract. We can see the effects of hygiene (such as a clean body, lack of body odor, or opposite of hygiene, such as athlete’s foot or other diseases), but we cannot see hygiene itself.
I can see my maxi pads.
A physical, tangible thing (maxi pads), related to hygiene (a concept, or construct).
hygiene, engaging in a practice until hygienic, is a construct. the act of scrubbing your skin might not be
That’s only if you include pointless hygiene like shaving legs and armpits. You’ll legit get skin issues, infections, and possibly attract pests if you don’t wash your ass.
“Sure, but your feet would still get cold.”
with this heat wave, wearing any clothes is also a social construct.
More like: not wearing bedouin robes: https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-08-16/the-bedouin-lesson-a-scientific-study-proves-robes-are-the-best-garment-to-wear-in-the-desert-heat.html
In desert heat. Humidity is a thing.
Parents feeding their kids is also a social construct. The Ancients tossed their kids in the salt mines quite early.
The children yearn for the mines
You see, in this world there’s two kinds of children, my friend: Those with Playstation 5s and those who dig.
I mean, if you have daughters send em to the work the corner. Probably a much better ROI if you can overlook being your daugher’s pimp.
Sadly, the younger the daughter, probably the better ROI both over time and initially. Now I feel gross for recognizing that evil exists in this world as more than just a concept, some people embody it.
I get that it’s a joke, but wearing socks is not a social construct-- it’s a social convention, but its utility is driven primarily by non-social factors. A social construct is an idea created and maintained by society specifically for its social function, which neither socks nor the act or wearing them nor the idea that wearing socks is good, are.
Some additional social constructs they may be more sentimental about: gifts, allowance, summer vacation, breakfast, lunch, dinner, doors, privacy, the internet.
