"Social Construct"

[Anonymous No.11197421]

What does the lefty intend to mean when they critique something with the notion that 'x is social construct therefore evil, bad, wrong, capitalistic, must be destroyed'

do they want us to be without social constructs? to succumb on the level of animals at the jungle? is not their tradition of critiquing social constructs a social construct itself and evil, capitalistic, bad

[Anonymous No.11197435]

We refer to them as spooks here

[Anonymous No.11197442]

All you have to do is keep in mind that they are man made and aren't objectively written in stone.

[Anonymous No.11197449]

It's more that when something is decided to be a "social construct" it means we are able to socially construct it to be something else. It's not a statement saying something is undesirable.

For example, saying gender is a social construct doesn't mean gender isn't desirable. Rather, it means that gender is something we can modify at our discretion.

[Anonymous No.11197453]

>>11197449
this

[Anonymous No.11197456]

I presume that by saying that 'x is a social construct' means that it can be changed: it isn't and essential fact of the universe. A further argument is needed as to whether it should be changed.

[Anonymous No.11197458]

>>11197449
Social Construct is a social construct so we can we modify it at our expression to respect continuity and tradition without making attack helicopters of anyone? Why do the Social Construct people never want to keep it but to destroy it?

[Anonymous No.11197472]

>>11197458
Equality is a social construct, and they certainly don't want to destroy that miserable illusion.

[Anonymous No.11197474]

>>11197458
The "Social Construct" crowd tends to be hard left. They create and destroy but rarely maintain is why.

[Anonymous No.11197479]

>>11197458
Yes, you can. Although you would need a reason as to why the traditional is preferable to the revisionist. I'm not saying there aren't reasons, I'm a traditionalist guy, but you'll need some information on your side if you want to go convincing people on the merits of tradition.

I don't think they think of themselves as destroyers, more like the people who have to sledgehammer a house before renovating it.

[Anonymous No.11197480]

>>11197449
>it means that gender is something we can modify at our discretion.

Thats retarded dude, you can't just change nature.

[Anonymous No.11197483]

>>11197480
Chill out, nobody said they weren't retarded

[Anonymous No.11197489]

>>11197479
I think a good mix of stability and revisionism is better than absolute change.

You can at least perceive changes more accurately when you change only 1 factor instead of 100.

[Anonymous No.11197512]

>>11197480
wearing a dress if you're a woman isn't "nature", it's a social custom. that's what gender is, a set of evolving social customs surrounding biological sex.

[Anonymous No.11197571]

>>11197421
People often draw ethical prescriptions from an essentialist interpretation of a concept.

One interesting "battleground" between the so-called "essentialist" and "social constructivist" viewpoints is human sexuality. I actually think most of both side's insights are equally useful, and the opposition is largely a matter of politically motivated dogmatism + academic resentment. Recognising trends in the genetic and morphological differences between identified homosexual and heterosexual men or women... and examining the way sexuality is expressed, socially determined, conceptually "invented" - such as contrasting the historical concepts of "sodomite", "effeminate", "pederast", "gay" and the way episteme zeitgeist shit determines the sexual behaviour of people of differing periods... these things don't have to be oppositional, though obviously too much of an emphasis on either produces radically different implications. For instance, person X looks at data showing that a large percentage of homosexual-identifiying men exhibit some gene in a certain way that differentiates them from heterosexual-identifying men; while person Y studies the Greeks and is confounded by the fact that it was not only socially acceptable but expected for all men to be naturally sexually attracted to adolescent boys. If you were to stop them both in that moment and interrogate them on how we ought to define/influence/regulate human sexual behaviour, they might produce very different answers.
t. non-lefty

[Anonymous No.11197576]

>destroyed

This idea of lefists as "destroyers" is virulently undialectical.

[Anonymous No.11197583]

>>11197576
>wants to destroy capitalism
>but its wrong to say they want to destroy it
what why how

[Anonymous No.11197599]

>>11197583
you should make sure you understand all the words in a post before responding

[Anonymous No.11197605]

>>11197599
im confused

was Soviet Union not trying to destroy Capitalism?

[Anonymous No.11197608]

now THIS is why i love /lit/

not only a shitpost thread, but also mad responses

[Anonymous No.11197611]

>>11197583
>>11197605
Capitalism is a necessary stage for human development.

The next stage in a triadic dialectic does not "destroy" the previous one. Please read a book or two before posting on a board about books. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11197615]

>>11197611
>Capitalism is a necessary stage for human development.
Sounds like pseudo-science claim mixed with fortune telling.

[Anonymous No.11197618]

>>11197599
>>11197611
Angry leftist spotted

[Anonymous No.11197621]

>>11197611
>The next stage in a triadic dialectic does not "destroy" the previous one
was Soviet Union not trying to destroy Capitalism? They were peaceful nation instead? What?

[Anonymous No.11197625]

>>11197605
>>11197621
>you should make sure you understand all the words in a post before responding

[Anonymous No.11197627]

>>11197615
I'm a pseudo-scientist and a fortune teller and I can confirm.

[sneed No.11197636]

>>11197576
>virulently undialectical.
cringe

[Anonymous No.11197639]

>>11197625
Can I get a paper to read how the million changes in economics, politics and culture the way they happened were necessary for human development and how humans couldn't have developed using any other way and how this also proves your claim about future being predestined?
Also while simultaneously telling me how Soviet Union was not trying to destroy Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11197643]

this is the book board fag

[Anonymous No.11197651]

>>11197643
books are for commie libtards get raped bookcuck

[Anonymous No.11197672]

>>11197421
For starters, It's generally not lefties who use the term "Social Construct", it's a modernist term from sociology. It's hard to even consider it the dreaded 'post-modern' idea as well.
This >>11197449 is pretty much the exact point.
Imagine having a long line of cats or any other species of animals, you line them up each generation. You don't see any difference between the next and the previous, or the previous ect. But you go back say 10000 generations and this animal looks nothing like the current, it's a weird ass blob and not a cat at all, since they have come from a long line of descendants, how can you place an exact point where the animal is "not a cat", and "is a cat". So when you apply this to pretty much the entire realm of science you'll notice that categorizing things (in some areas) is inefficient because it doesn't address underlying complexities. Social constructs are pretty much that, however think broader, and apply it to a collective. That's a social construct. And being the nature of a social construct, it's often primitive and simple, holding little to no meaning when you examine the subject.
However, people who make these claims that 'x is social construct therefore evil, bad, wrong, capitalistic, must be destroyed' are idiots.
I fully welcome a post-modernist of deconstruction this, but I don't think any of them would have time to start, because well, the idea that social constructs are good or evil is also pathetically simple, and doesn't address the complexities itself.

[Anonymous No.11197719]

>>11197605
No

[Anonymous No.11197720]

>>11197611
>Historical determinism.
>In 2018.
Sad.

[Anonymous No.11197725]

>>11197621
The state can function as a capitalist as well. The Soviet Union didn’t overcome capital, it has merely took it from private owners and gave it to the state (hence the label “state capitalism”).

[Anonymous No.11197733]

>>11197449
tpbp

it's this exactly

[Anonymous No.11197734]

>>11197449
/thread

[Anonymous No.11197736]

>>11197725
>not real socialism
ok

[Anonymous No.11197740]

>>11197736
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11197783]

>>11197449
This.

[Anonymous No.11197838]

>>11197672
>how can you place an exact point where the animal is "not a cat
When it is no longer able to reproduce with a cat

[Anonymous No.11197871]

>>11197421
>do they want us to be without social constructs? to succumb on the level of animals at the jungle?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11197935]

>>11197871
Ted kazyncsci wanted that and he hated leftist

[Anonymous No.11197951]

When does the implication that social constructs are bad ever come up

[Anonymous No.11197957]

>>11197951
Race, gender, sex for starters. They need to be eradicated as social constructs according to left.

[Anonymous No.11197958]

>>11197583
Capitalism is as much as a natural stage as socialism to leftists

[Anonymous No.11197965]

>>11197957
Nope, that's not at all what the left claims, nor do leftists even agree on this.

[Anonymous No.11197967]

>>11197639
you still have not looked up what the crucial word in the post you're mad about actually means, and as a result you're writing unrelated nonsense instead of having a real conversation. please make sure you know what all the words in a post mean before responding to it, please. thank you.

[Anonymous No.11197977]

>>11197967
>No explanation how capitalism was necessary for human's to develop.
figured as much.
probably can't even explain why socialism is predetermined outcome for future.
or how SU didn't try to end capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11197979]

>>11197957
a child gets mad at opinions he just himself invented: the post

[Anonymous No.11197980]

>>11197957
To claim that particular social constructs are oppressive or harmful is not indicting every spook.
Race is a particularly useless ones anyways

[Anonymous No.11197988]

>>11197458
Because coming up with new constructs isn't something you can just do on the spot, it takes generations of dialogue and embodied demonstration. The idea that this is under anyone's immediate control is childish. So it's easier to just talk about how the current ones cause problems.

[Anonymous No.11197989]

>>11197979
lmao, it's not my opinion that left and liberals preach how there's just 1 human race.

[Anonymous No.11197995]

>>11197977
you still have no idea what the word dialectic means, and as a result you're repeatedly posting nonsense about unrelated things like "predestination". all these posts later and you still have no idea what that anon's original post actually said despite the fact that it was just a single sentence and you had ample time to figure it out. you are going to be bewildered forever if you don't acquire basic literacy.

[Anonymous No.11197996]

>>11197957
>eradicated

[Anonymous No.11197999]

>>11197995
so Soviet Union never intended to destroy Capitalism?
Where is the proof that capitalism was necessary and socialism is predestined result for future? One book

[Anonymous No.11198000]

>>11197989
oogly boogly the scary liberals are coming for you

[Anonymous No.11198004]

>>11198000
They are though. It's inevitable.

[Anonymous No.11198005]

>>11198000
I'm now officially btfo. Wow. Dman.

[Anonymous No.11198010]

>>11197999
>Soviet Union never intended to destroy Capitalism?
Yes, if anything Lenin was unique in thinking the state/party can control capitalism
>One book
A lot of stuff was written about than one book

[Anonymous No.11198011]

>>11197999
your questions make no sense in relation to the post you're mad about because you failed to actually to read it. you will continue to be bewildered as long as you refuse to read posts.

[Anonymous No.11198018]

>>11198010
>>11198011
Please provide evidence that Capitalism was necessary for human's to develop and that Socialism is the predestined future.

>mad
I'm literally asking for evidence and you can't give; Now provide proof for future being predetermined socialist and capitalist being necessary for human development.

I'll wait, commies.

[Anonymous No.11198020]

>>11198018
oogly boogly the commies are coming

[Anonymous No.11198021]

>>11197421
Social construct is a meme word to justify antithemistic postures while not applying them to yourself. When anyone uses social construct as an argument I just dish their opinion into the trash

[Anonymous No.11198023]

>>11198020
Why can't you just link me your thesis proving this?!?!?!?

[Anonymous No.11198037]

>>11198018
>asked for explanation or clarification
>suddenly shifts goalposts by asking for evidence
Is this the Motte and bailey argument i heard so much about?

[Anonymous No.11198039]

>>11198023
oogly boogly?!?!?!?!?!?

[Anonymous No.11198040]

>>11198037
ONE FUCKING BOOK SO I CAN READ YOUR SCIENTIFIC REASONING FOR HOW THE FUTURE IS PREDETERMINED SOCIALISM

ONE (1!) BOOK IS ALL I ASK

[Anonymous No.11198043]

>>11198040
OOGLY BOOGLY

[Anonymous No.11198048]

>>11198043
das it mane i'm going back to reading von Böhm-Baverk

cya

[Anonymous No.11198051]

>>11198040
It is pretty obvious who to read for that answer, but you are probably not going or just using it as some further attack. You still haven't denied that you are essentially shifted goalposts

Das Kaptial

[Anonymous No.11198065]

>>11198051
Marx was wrong though, whilst he correctly saw many of the flaws in captialism, his major failing was theorising that it would collapse and instead it has moved in waves as Kondratiev suggested.

You can play the >not yet meme if you like but that's only true as so far as it's unfalsifiable, not that's remotely likely.

[Anonymous No.11198078]

>>11198065
Hegelian dialectics cannot explain historical pathways being necessary because it is distinctly ahistorical anyway so to suggest that Capitalism was necessary for human development is misguided notion.

and it definitely has not been able to prove that socialism is necessary future.

[Anonymous No.11198080]

>>11198078
>so to suggest based on Hegel/Marx that Capitalism was necessary for human development is misguided notion*

[Anonymous No.11198090]

>>11198048
Oooooooooogly booooooooooogly

[Anonymous No.11198093]

>>11198018
>>11198040
some anon wrote a simple sentence that contained a term originating in german idealism. being unfamiliar with the concept you couldn't parse the sentence but you argued against it anyway by substituting other unrelated sentences from your imagination like "the soviet union was peaceful". this idiocy led you so far astray you are now screaming nonsense about "books on predestination" and you still don't know what the sentence you are mad about even says. you could have spared yourself this indignity by simply looking up that unfamiliar word before responding.

[Anonymous No.11198101]

>>11198093
I don't see a book recommendation here about how socialism is the predetermined necessary outcome for capitalism which itself was a necessary requirement for human development.

Just one (1) book.

[Anonymous No.11198105]

>>11198101
capital, you moron. that's where the idea comes from

[Anonymous No.11198108]

FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY GAY SPACE COMMUNISM IS INEVITABLE OK?

[Anonymous No.11198110]

>>11198105
Capital is ahistorical and cannot prove either of the claims.

[Anonymous No.11198120]

>>11198110
well it's a little difficult to prove an assertion about the future in a book

[Anonymous No.11198125]

>>11198120
man that's what i've been saying

[Anonymous No.11198130]

>>11197421
Social constructs aren't inherently bad, but they are criticised because they abuse reality and factual truth in order to serve certain ends. So in the discourse surrounding gender you have sex, which is the biological fact of reproduction and the basic binary organisation of human anatomy. Then you have gender, which is composed of the presupposed and culturally mediated perceptions of what it means to be a boy or a girl– how we make the leap from a statement about reality ('It's a boy!") to something that tries to approximate the true reality ("he wants to be a girl"). Of course, this gets complicated because in talking about sex and gender as two different things you realise that, by extension, even biological sex (or rather the discourse surrounding it) is socially constructed– because ultimately what isn't? we're condemned always to talk to the images in our heads rather than to the reality beyond, and no amount of scientific research into body dysmorphia could ever convince a woman trapped in a man's body that their condition is the result of a delusion or even a physiological mistake. So ultimately its about letting individuals taking control of the definitions within which society is organised, rather than letting the definitions organise us.

[Anonymous No.11198146]

>>11198080
>>11198078
Necessity is a very strong definitive, particularly when dealing with evolution as animals have the ability to adapt to almost anything with enough time.

I would argue that capitalism is much more akin to our tribal nature than both feudalism and socialism since we our brains can cooperate on such a huge (country level) and hierarchy and competition are very common in nature. I believe it would be better to have an array of SMEs instead of huge multinationals but that is probably too idealistic.

[Anonymous No.11198161]

>>11198146
has anyone written hypothetical stuff about what would be the economics of space incorporated mankind, ie. asteroid mining, colonies in space/moon,

i mean who gets to put flag on the mars?
Musk? Is it then his?

[Anonymous No.11198297]

>>11198125

[Anonymous No.11198298]

>>11198297
aint nothing to it.

[Anonymous No.11198302]

/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11198340]

>>11197421
It's hard to tell what exactly is a social construct, but there seems to be 'religious constructs'. Compare the Islamic Middle East with the Christian West; the west values the individual with individual rights and there's almost no instance in which you can take someone's life without it coming with GRIEVOUS consequences if caught. That's quite Christian, Jesus Christ went on and on and on about non-violence ad nauseam pretty much. Meanwhile in the Islamic Middle East there's plenty of legal ways to kill someone. If they're an apostate the least they can expect is prison, you can kill a woman or girl for questioning Islam or disobeying the parents or coming out as lesbian via an 'honour killing' which has happened in the US, Canada, and the UK to my understanding in Muslim families. There's also public killings of gays, primarily by chucking them from rooftops, and not only is it out in the open but it's with chants of "Allahu ackbar" (Allah is great).

So while in the Middle East you can come up with legitimate reasons to take a life that would socially and lawfully acceptable, indeed a husband can also beat a wife if she should disobey him and the Quran expressly explains when this is ok, but in the Christian West it's almost NEVER ok to take a life except in clear self-defence cases and even then it depends on local laws. Here in Canada, you're basically fucked, even if your home is being fire bombed by masked thugs. Look up Ian Thomson; he didn't even take a life, just shot his legally-owned revolver on his rural property to scare them off. There's also basically no legal way to beat one's wife, in fact with the Duluth model if SHE attacks the husband and HE calls the Police for help, it's likely that HE will be forcibly removed from the property.

So, let us discuss 'social constructs', and try to get to the bottom of it. Gender is certainly not a 'social construct' because there's clear and studied biological differences between the two, including psychologically. Race isn't a 'social construct' either because there are differences between races that go farther than skin-deep. Even 'gender roles' aren't social constructs because of the typical psychology of men and women. As far as I'm concerned, any suggestions otherwise are pure opinion and scientifically baseless. So, what's a social construct?

[Anonymous No.11198362]

>>11198340
Lel mate, you need to stop letting the latest Youtube thinker video that you've watched influence your views on the next subject, regardless of topic.

There is a biological foundation to gender that is indeed predicated on the biology of sex. But choosing to categorise people according to sex, while it may be wise as it is the underlining structure of the survival of our species, is still a human construct - it is perfectly conceivable to imagine a set of biologically grounded facts that do a better job at predicting grouped patterns of human behaviour, thus rendering better categories by which we view human beings. That is not to say that 'gender is the invention of the wrinkly white patriarchy', but it is a human (social) construct nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.11198368]

>>11198362
>Don't be influenced by THAT THING, be influenced by THIS THING!
not even him and I don't even watch Peterson or Molymeme, but anon please.

[Anonymous No.11198370]

>>11197449
Gender isn't something we can modify though, at least not without some level of tyranny and consequence. Studies show that women in the 50s were happier than women today, and the stats only seem to be getting worse from there. We can also see in the Scandinavian countries where they've done more than any other region in history to be as egalitarian as possible, the outcome of opening all the doors possible to women to give them maximum opportunity didn't show that the profession differences minimized. They grew larger. WAY more men are engineers than women, and WAY more women are nurses and pediatricians than men. Women are more interested in people than 'things', and men are more interested in 'things' than people. Yes this is an average, yes there are exceptions (there will ALWAYS be exceptions and ONE person you know anecdotally doesn't change the average), but by and large if women are left to seek out the professional they desire then they will go for one that's safer and more people-oriented.

You think over 90% of workplace fatalities are male because men like to put themselves at risk? I've worked in construction, and it sucks, even considering the family friend we lost who was only in his 40s and left behind a wife and children, one of whom was a son that was apprenticing under him at the time. It's good money though, and so I did it for years. So, if it's a social construct, is it possible to change women from an early age to be more focused on things rather than people to seek out the higher-paying STEM field professions? Well that depends, do you think chimps 'suffer' from 'social constructs'? If you take a baby male chimp and a baby female chimp, then leave them with a toy truck and a soft doll, the male is more likely to go for the truck and the female is more likely to go for the doll. That's nature, and similarly it's in women's nature to lean more towards people than things.

What's wrong with that? Nothing. Is the wage gap an issue? It's already illegal to discriminate based on gender, and any employers who seek to break that law by paying women less should be prosecuted PROVIDED THERE IS REASON! Is there reason to pay a woman less than a man, yes, and there are reasons for vice versa as well. Experience, education, work hours, punctuality, likelihood to request a raise, and in the case of Hollywood there will inevitably be some women who will be paid more than some men due to notoriety and fame, and vice versa. Brad Pitt will make more than any actress who's unknown or only just starting to get some noteworthy roles. Similarly, Angelina Jolie will make more money than any actor who's likewise. There is nothing wrong with this. Scarlet Johannson would be paid more money to take her clothes off than I ever will as a big, hairy, masculine man. Is that sexual descrimination and should be made illegal? No, it's free market economics, it's nature, and it's about what's in demand.

[Anonymous No.11198376]

>>11198368
I don't understand what you mean by your orcish greenspeak.

[Anonymous No.11198378]

>>11198362
>"But choosing to categorise people according to sex..."
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.11198392]

>>11198378
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, on the contrary, I think it's quite reasonable, wise and there is value to it, precisely because it predicts group behaviour quite well and it is predicated on the two groups necessary for procreation.

All I am saying is that it isn't a categorical axiom, but a language by which we make sense of the world. Which is why I proposed the imagination exercise. The mere fact that one could conceive of a set of biological characteristics that better describe group behaviour and social function, indicates that there can be better ways to categorise human beings. I'm not saying that choosing sex as an axis for human categorisation is bad, I'm saying that it's a choice.

[Anonymous No.11198487]

>>11198392
Define how one would 'categorise people according to sex' and 'choosing sex as an axis for human categorisation'.

[Anonymous No.11198498]

>>11197421
Try reading "Social Construction of What?" by Ian Hacking and "The Construction of Social Reality" by John Searle

[Anonymous No.11198502]

>>11198487
Exactly how we've done it for millennia. By choosing the reality of biological sex as an axiomatic category by which we determine what we see as 'men' and 'women'.

[Anonymous No.11198504]

>>11198498
OP here, I actually read Searle's Speech Acts like 2-3 weeks ago, thank you I will give try to this rec.

[Anonymous No.11198511]

>>11197672
sage'd politely because this is off topic, but damn that hipster is stacked.

[Anonymous No.11198528]

>>11198161
In history it was always the entity (usually a monarchy/country) that funded the expedition laid claim to the land. This could mean that SpaceX's shareholders are the 'rightful' owners (which Musk is the largest) but the US will likely try and claim it as they are under it's jurisdiction. I'd imagine, however, in the end result would be that the UN would help declare it independent with elected officals to run it. If that is the outcome though who would be liable for the bill for the terraforming required? It's not legally sound (and under who's jurisdiction?) to pass these debts onto an entity that doesn't exist yet.

After this little thought experiment, I am swaying towards a very capitalist world in the sense that early investors (billionaires and countries) will be provided land in return for money required to make it inhabitable and an 'independent' government will be put in place to run it.

[Anonymous No.11198531]

>>11198502
There are differences between men and women however, so what's wrong with accepting the fact that men are men and women are women?

[Anonymous No.11198539]

>>11198531
Because thats not the argument being made. Not that anon but the whole argunent is gender =/= sex.

[Anonymous No.11198563]

>>11198531
There is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting the fact that men are men and women are women. It's a categorisation based on a biological reality. But the basis of categorisation isn't axiomatic, it's still a choice. We could have categorised humans based on the sizes of their nose, or pancreas and come up with distinct groups for different ranges, but that would have been unfortunate and retarded as it says little about common in-group characteristics. What I'm saying is that while distinct biological features are a reality, setting your target on specific ones over others by which you categorise makes categories 'human (social) constructs'. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm happy with the male and female categories.

[Anonymous No.11198570]

>>11198563
We could have not because it relies on vagina and dick hitting it up and making a baby.

Gay nose and gay nose cna't make baby because God didn't grant them that power

[Anonymous No.11198574]

>>11198570
Oh God, you're a fucking brainlet. Reread and come back for clarification if you still don't understand, but don't be an obtuse orc.

[Anonymous No.11198579]

>>11198570
>gay nose
take some time off the internet anon

[Anonymous No.11198580]

>>11198574
I'm stating it is axiomatic (categorization).

[Anonymous No.11198583]

>>11198539
I've heard about gender being the perception of sex while sex is actual sex, meaning a trans woman has the gender of a woman but the sex of a man. A trans man would be vice versa, no matter what hormone therapy or surgeries are performed. I'm ok with this, however the concept of 'non-binary genders' is something else entirely.

>>11198563
Are you saying that the differences in people's gender or sex are equal to or less important than the differences in people's nose size or pancreas? There are fundamental differences between people, some things more obvious or important and others less so. I still don't see what your views on 'social' constructs are. Your posts appear quite fancy with lots of big words but so far I'm not finding much actual content in them.

[Anonymous No.11198587]

>>11198579
I have nothing but you guys

[Anonymous No.11198610]

>>11198580
Right, I got that, that's why we started this exchange, but maybe it'd be more useful to refute what I actually said since you don't find it convincing. I was saying that while, various biological differences are axiomatic, choosing some over others as a basis for categorisation, while it is wise, is still a choice, thus a human construct.
>>11198583
>Are you saying that the differences in people's gender or sex are equal to or less important than the differences in people's nose size or pancreas?
No. I'm saying that it is conceivable that in the future we stumble upon other sets of categorical biological differences that would set the basis for a better categorisation of human groups, as it would describe their in-group similarities better, more accurately and with a higher predictive precision. I'm not saying that categorising based on sex is a fluke, or random, but it happened to be the most apparent and most encompassing distinctive feature by which we could devise useful human categories. And I think it still is. But it's still a choice.

[Anonymous No.11198618]

this is the book board faggot

[Anonymous No.11198626]

>>11198610
It doesn't seem to me to be a choice to tell the difference between males and females, and I can't conceive of ever coming up with a better/more accurate/more highly predictive method by which to categorize humans than based on sex.

>Height
>Weight
>Upper body strength
>Intelligence distribution
>Vocal pitch
>Bone structure
>Fat distribution
>Reproductive capabilities
>'Big 5 Personality Traits'

There are so many fundamental ways in which men and women differ, FAR more than even race-to-race differences from what I can tell, that I can't see any more fundamental way in which human being can be different. It seems like the greatest possible difference between human beings.

[Anonymous No.11198628]

>>11198618
Well fucking direct me to /phil/osophy board

[Anonymous No.11198629]

>>11198626
what fucking book nigger

[Anonymous No.11198634]

Social constructs are not inherently evil, bad, or "capitalistic" and I doubt there's anyone who believes that they are. As you imply, modern life is built on social constructs. What people mean when they critique something as a social construct is that there is nothing inherent or "natural" about that thing. Since these things are not an inherent part of humanity, it is worth considering whether they benefit or harm us, and what possible alternatives might be.

Not that I suspect you of arguing in good faith or actually wanting an explanation

[Anonymous No.11198637]

>>11198610
>a basis for categorisation, while it is wise, is still a choice, thus a human construct.
and? there's nothing arbitrary about basing it on dick+vagina=baby, but it would be fucking insanity to base it on hip-waist ratios. the fact we named this axiomatic biological difference does not make it any less moot by saying 'well its a social construct because duh human had to utter the word'

[Anonymous No.11198639]

>>11198629
Hansel and Gretel, now go whine somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.11198641]

>>11198626
>It seems like the greatest possible difference between human beings.
>It seems
That's the point. You can't possibly perform a calculation of how human civilisation would have evolved if it were predicated on biological realities with greater descriptive power for in-group similarities and predictive value for future behaviour. It also seems counter-intuitive to do away with what human procreation is based on, but maybe elements could be added to the sex factor, rather than eradicating it entirely.

I don't know whether it's a good idea or not and like I said, I'm happy with males and females, but it is still a choice, despite the fact that it might be the best one and it is a biological reality.

[Anonymous No.11198647]

Festering Nigger Diarrhea

[Anonymous No.11198651]

>>11198637
You truly are an obtuse orc. There are indeed better ways than others to choose the biological realities by which we categorise humans, but that doesn't make them anything other than choices.

[Anonymous No.11198657]

>>11198651
>it's just a choice bro.
you can't unwill your dick+vagina=baby by simlpy thinking about not making a baby while putting semen in the oven, its not a choice.

[Anonymous No.11198667]

>>11197421
A social construct is a more or less imaginary construct of a particular society, one that other societies have probably gotten along fine without and others haven't.

[Anonymous No.11198671]

>>11198340
Religion is a social phenomenon. Christianity is of Semitic heritage and originates in the East and has a very violent history in fact; the roots of liberalism aren't really in Christianity even if the art of hermeneutics can make it appear so. The middle east isn't so illiberal today just because of Islam, it's the result of complex historical and political factors that can't be explained ahistorically.

>>11198370
>Gender isn't something we can modify though
Yes it is. You can look at history and see changing understandings over time, hell it can even be modified in the most "naturalistic" sense, e.g. sex changes, which with developing understandings of biology and medicine will only problematize your stance more over time.

>at least not without some level of tyranny and consequence
Well you just gave up the fact you accept the premise things can be modified, you just don't want to accept certain methods. Stop confusing normative social agendas with a pure theoretical understanding of things. There's no reason to believe that liberalism is more conducive to what you see as a "naturalistic" order over time, in fact I would argue liberalism offers much more possibilities for various forms of "degeneracy" to emerge and develop in unforeseen ways.

>No, it's free market economics, it's nature, and it's about what's in demand.
I'm not going to deconstruct microeconomics here but markets are created and the creation and management of demand is a very interesting topic. Free markets can't exist without a large number of institutions to create and maintain them... corporations, governments, etc and they engage in their own tricks.

[Anonymous No.11198677]

>>11198657
I'm not saying you can, I'm saying you're a clinical retard with no reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.11198683]

>>11198671
>>Religion is a social phenomenon.
Everything humans do in their interactions is 'social phenomenon', that's like saying Universe is self-aware because we think about it oh damn

[Anonymous No.11198686]

>>11197458
>>11197474
>>11197988
>Why do the Social Construct people never want to keep it but to destroy it?
They do you fucking retards. Modern leftism is all about creating and enforcing a new culture/society that is consistent with their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.11198690]

>>11197480
Gender is synonymous with sex.

[Anonymous No.11198695]

>>11198686
>Modern leftism is all about creating and enforcing a new culture/society that is consistent with their beliefs.
There is nothing consistent about being approving/tolerating intolerant groups of Middle East people who behead gays (people left champion for example)

[Anonymous No.11198702]

>>11197435
not really. A social construct need not be a spook.

[Anonymous No.11198710]

>>11197583
Most leftists are not commie. Even self described socialists like Bernie Sanders and Switzerland are actually just social democrats.
>>11197605
>was Soviet Union not trying to destroy Capitalism?
Not really.

[Anonymous No.11198714]

>>11198710
>Switzerfuckingland
>socialist
what THE FUCK

at least use shit scandi states for your example

[Anonymous No.11198716]

>>11198146
>my leftist strawmen want us to be like animals with no social constructs living in the jungle!
>but also capitalism is the best economic system because it's the most similar to when we were animals with no social constructs living in the jungle
Hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.11198719]

The antagonism against social constructs comes when they are used as arguments for some current social hegemony. It's understandable that a feminist for example says it's bullshit that women can't have hairy armpits because "that's just not what women have".

Conversely however, the idea that social constructions are actually created consciously by people and can be changed on a whim is stupid and nonsensical for the same reason that a human being can't suddenly start liking chocolate if they don't like chocolate, or a human being can change finding the opposite sex attractive.

[Anonymous No.11198723]

>>11198690
>Gender is synonymous with sex.
Has it, really? Even if it ever was it can be problematized and reconceptualized and that's exactly the point.

>>11198695
Well you see, if you've been around long enough you'll see everyone is actually inconsistent and that's really a breakthrough in understanding things. Maybe that's problematic to you and that's ok. I personally don't think we should tolerant intolerance but then again I think you've really got to hand it to ISIS, they really showed a lot of zest when they were really going at it

[Anonymous No.11198727]

>>11198723
It's pretty big problem if they keep importing 15% minorites to nuclear states in Europe.

[Anonymous No.11198728]

>>11198714
I got them mixed up, I'm a burger so I can't be fucked to tell you degenerates apart.

[Anonymous No.11198736]

>>11198695
They see the far right brownies as the third world uneducated retards as they are. They just have a harder time accepting that most of them are that way and that they will not change.

[Anonymous No.11198742]

>>11197838
I don't think you understand what I meant, to clarify, the cat example was is a biological construction. A social construction is a construction that is agreed upon by a collective. I should have focused on making that connection more apparent.

[Anonymous No.11198749]

>>11198723
I mean to write
>gender is not synonymous with sex
but got lazy and gave up

[Anonymous No.11198830]

>>11198716
My argument was that many advocates of communism/socialism claim two things: 1. Hierarchy isn't natural and is a social construct and 2. that we are naturally predisposition to cooperation not competition, therefore communism is more natural.

I'm suggesting that 1. is perfectly natural, look at chimpanzees and how the leader dominates sex and 2. that whilst this is true to a degree, we are incapable of working in such big groups (countries) and that psychologically speaking our social circles max out at 50-100. This makes capitalism make more sense when you stop seeing it as everyone out for themselves and instead a bunch of cooperating tribes (companies) competing with each other. Not that these don't contain internal conflict but so do tribes of animals.

[Anonymous No.11198862]

>>11198830
>1. Hierarchy isn't natural and is a social construct and 2. that we are naturally predisposition to cooperation not competition, therefore communism is more natural.
Literally who says that?

And social link doesn't equate to cooperation. Are you saying that people don't cooperate with strangers on a regular basis?

[Anonymous No.11198876]

>>11198830
I would argue that in the 18th century idea of capitalism being based on small, community-based companies (excluding huge mercantile corporations like the East India Companies), your argument holds. However, in the 21st century, capitalism has accelerated to the point that companies no longer resemble tribes in any sense - they span every continent on earth, don't place value in the majority of their workers, use lobbying power to manipulate the government in their favor, use advertising power to pervert culture in their favor, and have innumerable other problems that make them overall alienating and parasitic. There is nothing natural about this and nothing worth defending, in my eyes.

[Anonymous No.11198880]

>>11198830
>Hierarchy isn't natural.
It literally exists between fucking apes who can't think further than their nose and cannot be said to have 'society' or 'social norms' or 'social interactions' in the sense that humans have?

[Anonymous No.11198889]

>>11198830
>>11198876
>Underage plebs who got their education on youtube.
You're not even capable of sticking to the OP topic.

[Anonymous No.11198897]

>>11198370
>We can also see in Scandinavian countries
Is this Peterson stealthposting?

[Anonymous No.11198951]

>>11198862
Marx and Engles... Look up primitive communism.

>>11198876
I agree, I said this in previous post but just because we are seemly moving away from this it doesn't make socialism/left wing ideas any more natural.

>>11198880
Learn to read the whole post before you post. I literally said this exact thing.

[Anonymous No.11198960]

>>11198951
I don't have patience to read full sentences let alone posts.

[Anonymous No.11198971]

Yeah, tell me how my hunger is socially constructed, i´ll wait...

[Anonymous No.11198990]

>>11197512
but anon, women don't wear dresses because gender is a social construct, women wear dresses because other women do

[Anonymous No.11198993]

>>11197421
see: >>11197442 and >>11197449

>>11198686
>Modern leftism is all about creating and enforcing a new culture/society that is consistent with their beliefs.
This is true of all political movements. Alt-right wants their ethnostate, lolbertarians want their open carry laws, neoliberals want to frame every cultural issue in terms of markets, anarchists want to abolish "unjust hierarchies," tankies want a "dictatorship of the proletariat," race and gender activists want to smooth over historical disparities in success. Creating and enforcing a new culture/society is literally the reason anyone would get involved with politics.

>>11197480
>gender naturalism/essentialism
High heels, along with tights and wigs, used to be considered masculine. Now, they're considered feminine. The concept of masculinity has changed over time. Penises, however, have been pretty much the same for all of human civilization (excluding practices like circumcision — I'm talking basic, born-with-it penises), so the male sex has stayed the same over an equally long historical period. If gender (masculinity) can change while sex (having a penis) stays the same, that indicates that gender and sex are not the same thing, and that gender is primarily cultural where sex is primarily biological. That's why academics distinguish between the two.

[Anonymous No.11198996]

>>11197449
Saying something established is changeable is fundamentally an expression of it being undesirable, else there's no call to remark upon it. Why are all PoMo faggots such sophists?

[Anonymous No.11199016]

>>11198990
He didn't state things clearly. The idea of women and femininity has obvious biological nature, but there's aspects of it which don't. By 'gender' he probably meant the set of ideas surrounding the sex in question, of which 'wearing dresses' is stereotyped in our culture.

The fact that women individually wear dresses because that's normative in their culture, is compatible with saying that "dresses being associated to women is a social construct". In this sense, gender IS a social construct, but in the same way that a house is man-made though it's components and foundations are given by nature.

[Anonymous No.11199017]

>>11198362
>it is perfectly conceivable to imagine a set of biologically grounded facts that do a better job at predicting grouped patterns of human behaviour
Like what? Name them. The fact of the matter is practicality in adoption and maintenance is included in "better" and existence of impossible nameless substanceless hypotheticals proves nothing. Yet that is what every faggot with this argument invokes. It's quite laughable really, such a level of delusion, totally divorced reality.

[Anonymous No.11199029]

>>11198990
>women don't wear dresses because gender is a social construct
wrong
>women wear dresses because other women do
>women wear dresses because they are socially invited to by other women
>women wear dresses because they are socially invited to because of their gender
>women wear dresses because it is a socially-constructed part of their gender identity
right

[Anonymous No.11199032]

>>11197421
Its meaningless nihilist noise, they think society and its constructs come from a vacuum, that is to say they don't and they think.

[Anonymous No.11199043]

>>11199032
I agree the term is used in a retarded way, but it's not 'nihilist' in any way.

[Anonymous No.11199054]

>>11199017
> Name them
You're missing the point. Whether it's a specific landscape of the brain combined with sex that would lead to better categorisation, or something else that leads to something worse, it's still a human choice by which we decode the world and make sens of differences. Yes it is useful, yes, sex is real and so are the adjacent differences that stem from the sexes, but predicating differences on any given set of differences is still a choice, thus a human construct.

[Anonymous No.11199059]

>Constructivism is a social construct
>Thought is a social construct
>Conscienceness is a social construct

[Anonymous No.11199087]

>>11198610
Good point. I would say that "categorical biological differences" might be misleading but I see what you mean. When we see an individual we assign to them approximate measures (e.g. height, hair length, facial structure, voice pitch), each of these measures having different weight when it comes to categorization (while height does vary between the groups "men" and "women", it's not as strong a predictor as voice pitch or presence of facial hair or breasts etc.).
These measures are not yet categorical though, only once we categorize the individual according to the measures do they become categorical, and thus we redefine the variable as having a stronger, weaker, or identical predictive strength for categorization.

[Anonymous No.11199089]

>>11198641
Sounds like we're not going to reach much more middle ground than we already have. To each their own.

>>11198897
No, but I'm a huge fan of Dr. Peterson.

[Anonymous No.11199091]

>>11199054
There is no point to miss though, it's useless to say things could be better, different, without any suggestion what that actually looks like. It's totally devoid of meaning.

[Anonymous No.11199116]

>>11199091
But I have suggested how different would look like you cretin. Literally anything but the present categorisation of human being based on sex. As far as better, or worse, that is out of my bounds as it's hard to say how a civilisation in which human categories are predicated on categories with better descriptive features for in-group similarities would perform. But better or worse wasn't my point.
>>11199089
I know, feels like we're talking past each other. Peterson would agree with me you know. Maybe your sympathy towards him would make you more open to digesting the argument about sex being indeed a social construct, but that in itself doesn't say anything.

[Anonymous No.11199121]

>>11199054
>but predicating differences on any given set of differences is still a choice, thus a human construct.
Do you hear yourself?
>This is circular but the conclusion's distinct!

[Anonymous No.11199126]

>>11199116
>But I have suggested how different would look like you cretin. Literally anything but the present categorisation of human being based on sex.
Saying different from the current only describes the current, not the prospective.

[Anonymous No.11199149]

>>11198657
Please be bait.
Dick + vagina = baby IS a categorization, a very useful one, but still a categorization. The reason they're very good predictors for grouping is because the statistical variability within the groups "has a penis" and "has a vagina" is far lower that the variability between the groups, but it's still there and you CHOOSE to ignore that low variability within "men" or "women" because it's very convenient. It's not a conscious choice because we observe other members of society and inherit their categorizations, but if you imagine a state of nature where you have to discover the world on your own, you would even have to categorize members of your own species as being such.

[Anonymous No.11199154]

>>11199149
It is not a categarization.
You cannot undo dick+vagina=baby by undoing the categorization. You still get a baby when you put dick in vagina and sperm in the oven.

[Anonymous No.11199170]

>>11199121
Mate. Let me make this as formulaic as possible for your jpeg-reaction based orc brain.

It would be retarded for us to do away with human categorisation based on biological differences. Any form of human categorisation is a 'social' construct. Whether it's sex, or something with more or less descriptive insight for in-group traits, they're all human constructs, despite them being predicated on real biological differences. Mainly because the categories are chosen to the detriment of other factors, simply due to convenience and pragmatism.

The only way in which human categorisation (in the way sex and gender have become our fundamental human identities) wouldn't be constructed 'constructed' in my view is if we could account for all the individual differences between humans.

>>11199126
I've given the example of sex + neural landscapes as a basis for categorisation. It doesn't matter though. The example is not the crux of my point, nor is the assumption whether a different categorisation would be better or worse.

[Anonymous No.11199185]

>>11199154
Christ you're dense. What the fuck does "undo" dick+vagina=baby mean for you?
If you use fertility as a predictive factor, it will work quite well but not perfectly because you'll get some sterile individuals for which dick+vagina≠baby and yet they wouldn't be of the same sex. Even if you take complex measurements like genomic analysis or hormonal profile you would still find variability within the categories that arise from statistical categorization. The choice is to ignore that variability.

[Anonymous No.11199189]

>>11199185
>it will work quite well but not perfectly because you'll get some sterile individuals for which dick+vagina≠baby and yet they wouldn't be of the same sex
but not because dick vagina baby function was missing but because one of the parts was malfunctioning,

>What the fuck does "undo" dick+vagina=baby mean for you?
it means that you cant undo gender and sex by calling yourself tranny or attack helicopter because the material reality is that dick vagina baby which manifests as body parts and functions and not as insanity in your brain

[Anonymous No.11199200]

>>11199189
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the idea of a scientific model. The very function "dick vagina baby" is only a model, one with high predictive value, but a model nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.11199203]

>>11199200
>its just a model
oh its just a model that babies come, if you don't think about the model you can unwill the babies that come out. ok.

[Anonymous No.11199209]

>>11199121
>>11199126
>>11199170
Another way of putting it: think of the totality of real numbers R as axiomatic. That is what I define as reality in this example.

While it may be useful for us to think of R as composed of rational numbers (which can be further categorised into integers that contain natural numbers) and irrational numbers, all these categories merely serve as functional categories for our utility. They're all predicated on real differences between these numbers, but choosing to group them in one exclusive way over another is not "real" as the only reality of these numbers are the totality of their individual traits and their relationship with one another.

It may be useful for us to categorise them, but it's certainly not "real". It's "constructed".

[Anonymous No.11199230]

>>11199203
that's not what I said

[Anonymous No.11199235]

>>11199230
>The very function "dick vagina baby" is only a model
>if there is no model there is no function

[Anonymous No.11199242]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.11199248]

>>11199242
sorry i'm pretty dim cookie.. that's why i asked..

[Anonymous No.11199254]

>>11199235
Sure, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any phenomenon that you can observe.
Whether or not you explain things does not impact their occurence. You don't need to categorize an apple as having mass to observe it falling to earth.