/lit/ - Literature

>>6604725
That's not even a real argument. Government, for instance, is clearly a social construct, but at the same time, it is very real.

usually if someone uses this in an argumentative context, they really don't know what that means, so just ask what it means that x is a social construct.

>>6604725
I'll tell you, but you're not gonna like it.
"your mom is a social construct"

>>6604725
You would have to be able to prove it's not a social construct. Something being a social construct to not carry some inherent badness.

>>6604725
by recognizing in turn that your desire and subsequent inability to win arguments is a social construct.

>>6604734
very real or just a certain number of individuals you give the name to who do things like work in parliament?

>>6604725
social constructs are spooks.

>>6604725
How about this absolute dick move: "and how could you tell that society is wrong, while being part of it?" They will loathe you forever, because this is actually fucking hard to explain. You will probably lose all friends who have a conscience, but, well, you will win.

>>6604725
>thinking that's an bullshit argument
>>>/sci/ or something.

Our experience of the world around us is always influenced by the society within which we live, everything that we perceive is in part a social construct, as we can't just rise above the society and culture in which we live and part of which we are, even if we try.

>>6604764
No difference there, really. The fact that they're just a bunch of folks, and that their power only rests on a collective agreement on very shaky grounds, won't keep me out of prison.

>>6604764
And what isn't real about that?

>>6604740
>Something being a social construct to not carry some inherent badness.

This. Too many people think that just because something is a social construct it is either a) non-existent or b) wrong or bad. Both are false.

>>6604788
THIS SO MUCH

I think that this belief was mostly made popular on /pol/, where claiming that X is an social construct brands you a "cultural marxist".

>>6604788
But there clearly is a legitimate use of the accusation, namely when the opposition attempts to hypostasize. It comes with the risk of being caught at hypostasizing society, though.

>>6604807
>hypostasize
Seriously: what does this word even mean?
Or did you mean hypothesizing?

>>6604822
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

It appears you didn't start with the greeks.

>>6604764
Are you implying that the power those people wield isn't real?

>>6604801
Maybe, I think it's mostly due to a lot of tumblr activists misinterpreting what "social construct" actually implies as well.

>>6604745
You could probably turn this around and just throw it at someone IRL.
>you're claiming x is a social construct to serve your own desire and subsquent inability to win arguments which in itself is a social construct
>"le gasp did anon just say subsequent"

Any shithead at a frat party talking about social constructs won't be able to reply and you'll look really cool OP.

>>6604864
Yeah, I have to agree. A lot of people think that saying X is a social construct wins the argument.
Or makes is somehow more subjective.
While if you want to be a "leftist" you should critically examine why X is a social construct in a way that it is, why does X includes y and z, but not q.

>>6604870
>Any shithead at a frat party talking about social constructs
Is this a thing? Sjw frat bros?

>>6604894
Totally.

>>6604771

well because, saying that something is a social construct doesn't mean that is wrong, it just means that it isn't necessarily a static unchangeable truth without context. it misses the point.

>>6604898
more like you got embarrassed by a misconstrued argument cause you over estimated your own intellect. such is the life for a fedorathiest

>>6604736
But motherhood is deeply related to us in a biologic sense, it's not just a "social construct".

>>6604899
>muh faux neutral stance
If something is a social construcr, you either affirm it or critique it, no middle ground. At least if it's a construct of your own society.

>>6604907
I didn't even write the post you quoted, you fedora obsessed dolt.

>>6604917
I am deeply related to your mother.

>>6604725
Say that laws are social constructs too
It's an illusory argument

>>6604917
Actually it is, to a point.
The relation between mother and a child differ widely from century to century and from society to society. You have everything to hands-on motherly love approach, to soviet-style kindergartens from an early age.

>>6604917

mothers in nomade groups killed their children without guilt

>>6604907
It doesn't matter if the argument is well constructed. If someone has the audacity to claim that X is a social construct as an argument with no other supporting claims then my goal would be to leave them in a situation in which they couldn't reply so that onlookers would believe that I have triumphed.
If someone were smart enough to combat the greentext in >>6604870 then they probably wouldn't use "X is a social construct" as an argument in the first place.
The logical fallacy within my post is evident and meant to be a troll tatic for IRL arguements (since ones like these on the internet can't get us laid)

>>6604948
Also skeletons of newborn babies were found in almost every Roman dump and canalisation.
Motherhood changed a lot through the ages.

>>6604951
>IRL arguements (since ones like these on the internet can't get us laid)
Wait, you believe winning IRL arguments gets you laid?

>>6604922
>critique
>no middle ground
'Critique,' as a purely intellectual pseudo-revolutionary endeavor that never accomplishes anything at all, is the middle ground between affirmation and denial.

>>6604992
None of what you just said made sense, but the implication that denial is revolutionary has earned you a place in my heart. Congratulations, you're my davourite retard of the day.

The other day a guy told me the need for hourglass figure and nice asses in women was a social construct. It was funny.

>>6604992
While that might be true, critiquing shows that you actually thought about the topic, and that you don't just accept the pre-existing arguments.
If you wish to argue for something, you must critique it, because if you don't then you're just citing others on that topic, and that's not really your argument.

>>6605008
Beauty standards do change with culture though.

>>6604992

mein gott pure ideology

Is sense of humour a social construct? I think it is. For example, people from different countries (taking the average guy of both) will probably laugh at different things. And humour is in a way a kind of communication, which has socially evolved a fucking lot.

>>6605024

There are things that doesn't change though, or they are too close to modernity i don't know. For example blacks slaves were already cucking arabians in 9th century

>>6605030
To a degree it is.
But some themes don't change. Like farting, the oldest recorded joke in history was apparently about farting.

>>6605040
unironically cuck-posting
I'd tell you to go back to /tv/, but even they mostly do it ironically, so I guess /pol/ it is.

>>6605056
>unironically cuck-posting
>I'd tell you to go back to /tv/, but even they mostly do it ironically, so I guess /pol/ it is.

but it's real anon, it's even a plot device from one thousand one nights

>>6605024
I'm pretty sure nice butts have always been a (sometimes unspoken) standard of physical beauty in women.

>>6605040
>pressured to bring up an unchangeable fact of life
>first thing that comes to mind is cuckolding
oh you

>>6604771
>and how could you tell that society is wrong, while being part of it?
That's the most stupid thing I have read this year
>how can you disagree with the foreign policy of your country while being part of it? hurrr

>>6604982
>mfw debating a woman re: why fucking me is the right thing to do
>mfw won the argument
>mfw no sex regardless
i won tho

>>6604725
You don't have to counter it because it's not an argument. An argument would be "the social construct X is wrong, because...".
People who say that as an argument in and of itself have no idea what a social construct even is. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's bad or irrelevant.

>>6604982
Holy shit I'm trolling. Fuck.

>>6605086
>Opposing particular policies requires a critical distance from the way the social organism you're part of construes reality

>>6605066
I still doubt that it had the same "definition" of cucking, as cucking has on neo-4chan.
I mean, first cuckold is obviously quite an old word and an even older concept. But it in general refers to female adultery in a stable monogamous relationship.
Modern "porn" definition of cuck could be an fetish for a long time. Even in ancient Rome, masters would watch their slaves having sex to titillate themselves. And that's pretty close to an actual cuckoldry.
But modern "cuck" fetish was probably defined by porn, when it slowly went from any type of female adultery, to a female adultery with a black male, with a large penis.
tl;dr: cuck is a social construct.

>>6605040
buthurt spanish propaganda, the Arabs used the eunuchs so...
>>6605066
1001 was persian/indian but translated by the Arabs
Proof : the names of charecters aren't Arabic names so...

>>6605157
Keep your jihad to yourself, Mahound. This is completely besides the point.

>>6605157

i love you anon, my sides exploded

>>6604725
le epik zizek memes are epik

look up reification and use it.

>>6604725
>X is just a social construct
"and?"

C H E C K M 8
H
E
C
K
M
8

>>6605104
>when it slowly went from any type of female adultery, to a female adultery with a black male, with a large penis.
what? since when is cuckolding only limited to interracial?

>>6605173
JIHAD???
read the fuckin' history

>>6605184
What exactly do you think you'll achieve with reification? Social constructs are obviously always reified, but that doesn't mean they're not social construct.

>>6605209
That's the definition used by neo-/tv/ and /pol/, which has in last few months also spread to reddit, and probably some other sites. It's basically a shiposting meme.

>>6605209
It isn't, but that's what people on 4chan mean when they talk about it, mainly because some /pol/lacks introduced the concept as another jewish plot to exterminate the white race.

>>6605225
>That's the definition used by neo-/tv/ and /pol/, which has in last few months also spread to reddit, and probably some other sites. It's basically a shiposting meme.
because there's clearly nothing pathological about that

>What exactly do you think you'll achieve with reification? Social constructs are obviously always reified, but that doesn't mean they're not social construct.

Because one must clarify how their shitty abstractions can be reified, and in the process you'll be able to see how their reasoning is pure fantasy.

>>6605224
Woah, easy, no reason to blow up like that.

autism: the thread

>>6605225
>/tv/ cares about cucks
aren't they the same people who masturbate to little girls feet

>>6605104

Well the modern cuck fetish is exactly the plot device that one thousand and one nights uses anon. They are blacks, have large penises, and the wife and some other women gets horny at them and cheats the lord in a massive orgy, then he sends to kill all the black slaves and women who were at the palace doing that or something, i don't remember exactly how it was, but it's in the very beginning of the book lel.

>>6605258
I don't see the inconsistency, people who masturbate to little girls feet are exactly the kind of people I'd expect to be offended by cuck being a thing.

>>6605235
>Because one must clarify how their shitty abstractions can be reified, and in the process you'll be able to see how their reasoning is pure fantasy.
I hope you don't actually believe this. Only thing that you can prove with reification is, that social constructs work in society. It literally proves they exist. In sense of the argument it doesn't prove anything.
But it's obvious you're from /pol/ and think that social construct means "is not real", so why am I even trying?
Social construct only means that it's not naturally occurring, or if it is, that this natural occurrence is defined and regulated by the society. Like feeling embarrassed for having an erection in a public space or something.

>>6605263
This is kind of embarrassing, but I never actually read 1001 and one nights in its entirety. But I've seen a porno based on it, and interestingly enough, while it had cuckoldry in it, it wasn't interracial.

>X is a spook.

How do I counterstrike this hubabaloo.

>>6604725
>X is just a social construct

social constructs
are a social construct

>>6605289
>But it's obvious you're from /pol/ and think that social construct means "is not real", so why am I even trying?
I have never redirected my browser to /pol/. I assume you're some blind alley Marxist who's only viewing the concept through one lens?

>>6605281
Dunno, sounds like a scrawny anemic guy who goes at the gym and mocks the other scrawny people

>>6605299

>>6605306
Nah, just the way you defended cuckposting with maymays, made me think you must post on /pol/.
Also can you explain what exactly is wrong with concept of social construct, or at least present another view on it.

>>6605314
What? When did I defend cuckposting? You're probably mistaking me for another anon.

The problem with social constructs is the reification. Not in the reification of the belief of social construct, obviously that's real. But in reifying patriarchy, it necessarily will fail and there will be dozens of counterexamples. You're right though, that believing in patriarchy leads to concrete results, but they're different social phenomena

>>6605314

also like >>6605299 implies, the state people want to get to in response to "social constructs" is a social construct. It's like the distinction between "natural" and "artificial", it's actually an entirely meaningless distinction and it's completely made up. There's simply matter. And when it comes to social relations, you can't argue against social constructs while asserting your own without an ethics

>>6605307
Nah, I don't think the analogy works. Thing is, these people have zero confidence. Little girls feet pose absolutely no threat their self-image, while the thought of having a significant other that enjoys being fucked by someone way more attractive than themselves, and even of another race, while they sit idly by or even get off on it, now that is the most horrible thing they can imagine, as tjat would validate what they secretely know to be true already: tjat they are failures, and sexually unappealing.

>>6605328
>>6605339
First something like patriarchy is obviously social construct, as it's just a common name for a nexus of social relations within many (mostly) western societies, that still exist to a point. What people (should) mean while saying patriarchy is a social construct is, that it's not natural human behaviour, but set of historical practices, that are still used, because they became part of our social traditions.

So yeah in short, saying something is a social construct means that it can be changed, as it's not "set in stone" and most people saying that, do want it changed, but that doesn't somehow defeat their argument, because they want change one social construct for another, or because they use social constructs to attack or critique a social construct. It mainly means, they want to change for whatever reason they present (and if they don't, then it's probably trolling).

>>6605361
>secretely
>implying

>>6605361
no offense but that's a lot of armchair right there

>>6605397
Well if they fully admitted to being öatjetic, why would cucks bother them?
>>6605410
Of armchair what? Armchair criticism? Sure, I'm not actually going out there and trying to help those poor souls, are you going to hold this against me?

>>6605390
>First something like patriarchy is obviously social construct, as it's just a common name for a nexus of social relations within many (mostly) western societies, that still exist to a point.
Oh really? Why don't you actually provide particulars, really truly apply it.

>What people (should) mean while saying patriarchy is a social construct is, that it's not natural human behaviour, but set of historical practices, that are still used, because they became part of our social traditions.
Okay, so why change it?

>It mainly means, they want to change for whatever reason they present (and if they don't, then it's probably trolling).
So social constructs are just whatever idea is convenient to get people what they want?

>>6605390
>within many (mostly) western societies
Bull fucking shit, patriarchy clearly is an international phenomenon, because, guess what, the contigent forms that human societies pass through are strikingly similar across the globe. If anything, the western world is the least patriarchal place in history.

>mfw people call louis ck a cuck

sure, kind of, but he also has bits like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRDXeinEUJQ

george carlin was way more of a cuckmedian than louis

>>6605459
>but muh matriarchy
>i found like three sketchy examples
>but muh anthropologists hypothesize that prehistorical societies were egalitarian
>MUH EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY IS EVIL

SJW's use the exact same reasoning as "the patriarchy" to justify their beliefs, they're just too stupid to see it.

>>6605495
Does either of them enjoy watching their significant other being fucked by other men? No? Then they're not cucks.

>>6605501
cuck detected

>>6605500
Matrarchy probably did exist in primitive societues, no problem with that at all. But the process of civilization clearly required patriarchal form for most of the time, just like it required slavery, sefdom, genocide, imperialism and all sorts of cruel percution. History, in short, is a nightmare from which I'm trying to awaken.

>>6605507
Oh boy, it's like I'm on /tv/
>cuck detected
Eh,...for you?

>>6605495
>nigger was a FEELING
jej

>>6605495
>george carlin was way more of a cuckmedian than louis
i've only heard him say retarded shit that could be construed as that like twice and I've always thought he did it for the easy applause.

>>6605521
Do whatever you want, I'll live the patriarchy (except that means oppressing you, which I do gladly)

>>6605552
>'ll live the patriarchy
The patriarchy is dead in the west, and dying elsewhere, so good luck with that. Try joining a middle eastern protection racket or something.
>except that means oppressing you, which I do gladly
Eh, I'm a guy, so I don't know how you're going to go about this. Then again, given that you're some anon on an afghan carpet board, I also doubt your success at oppressing actual chicks.

>>6604725
X...
This isn't even worth responding to.

>>6605551
He basically hates white people, have you listened to alot of him?

>>6605591
stop triggering me

>>6605596
X by the 69 eyes.

>>6605619
Or, ecksh, if you prefer.

>>6605610
Oh, sorry, can you tell me which words to avoid so I don't accidentally trigger you?

>>6605591
>I'm a guy
The patriarchy hurts men too!

>>6605605
link to sketch

>>6605647
Of course it does, but as I said, it's done for, anyways.

>>6605263
>>6605361
>>6605307
>>6605281

confident has absolutely nothing to do with penis size i have 19cm penis but still socially awkward remember the anon who showed /lit/ his 8 inch dick that was I and I got banned i don't masturbate on little girls feet and i don't need to deal with your faggotry and the normalization of abnormal
if you have skype i will show you my 8 inch dick but i have to see your girlfriend or ur wife or ur mother dancing naked

>>6605763
>shows his dick to other men online
>offers to do it again
>demands actions that border on cuck/incest as recompensation
>will not accept the normalization of abnormal
Comedy gold. Are from a third world country btw? There's something...idk how to put it..lesser developed about your spergful rage.