Is everything a social construct?

What does it even mean? Progressivism is so confusing.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/
youtube.com/watch?v=neL8OmGlXsM
youtu.be/1YfEoxU82us
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No. Homosexuality is genetic. Gender and race are social constructs.

No, not everything is a social construct.

And social constructs are like physical construct. They were built for a reason. We build dwellings to protect ourselves from the elements. We built heterosexual monogamous lifelong marriage to regulated procreation and optimize child rearing. Both constructions are useful to society.

Bullshit, studies imply that homosexuality is probably more environmental conditioning than genetics.

Race is a social construct because it's not valid biological taxonomy.

Gender depends on your definition, if you describe gender as something that only includes behavioral traits not caused by your sexuality (e.g. liking the color pink as a girl), then yes it's a social construct. Reminder that gender theory is a mess and not really scientific and mostly just a game of semantics.

But how can you tell apart a useful social construct from a bad one? Wouldn't the world be a better place if it was run for the benefit of LGBT people and other oppressed minorities?

This is some deep level shitposting

Last point is untrue when you read anthropology, before the neolithic revolution we can assume children only had a mother, while all the men of the tribe would be treated as uncles as you couldn't tell who was the father.

Nuclear family (as a remnant of the extended family) didn't appear before humans became sedentary, it was an economic model before all else, optimized for the division of labor.

Make an argument or fuck off

Can't tell if undercover leaf or complete retard

Why then are there not more example of thriving societies of feminine men and butch women? Why does every society seem to replicate somewhat similar social constructs around such things as ethnic and gender identity?

Progressivism is hard to understand because it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to ignore the biological, objective reality that we live in.
Social Scientists want a social, subjective reality so badly.

No silly, but you keep bogerfaec and pretend so with every progressive you encounter because it's easy af to drive any agenda with such mindset. Their brain is like playdoh. Just use words "problematic" and "sweetie" a lot.

everything
on a
case by case
basis
many such cases

Everything that separates humans from animals is a 'social construct'. A thing isn't devalued by virtue of being a social construct. The premise of critical theory is that every social construct must be examined and deconstructed if it doesn't help achieve equality/social justice as they define it, working on the assumption that all social constructs are plastic and not rooted in some immutable phenomena and thus can be swapped for other constructs they find preferable.

Only Post-modernists/deconstuctionists think yelling 'social construct' is an argument because they can't imagine starting from a premise that social constructs may describe something non plastic or themselves be as real as anything else or that equality and social justice aren't necessarily desirable ends or that other ends are more preferable.

>Race is a social construct because it's not valid biological taxonomy.

What does that mean?

It's is known that certain populations of black people have longer legs than torsos, thus giving them a physical advantage in running and a physical disadvantage in swimming. You telling me that is just a social construct?

Sex is a social construct. Rape isn't.

All degenerate modern "thinking" can be traced back to the decline of christianity and religion in general
When there is no afterlife, no god etc there is no good or bad, there are no values to uphold because there are no divine consequences for transgressions for anything
As such people see no point in behaving morally right
Society's moral system gradually degenerates until you end up with a society of consumerist hypersexualized slaves with effeminate beta men and aggressive promiscuous women
The next logical step is the decline not only of sexual and familial values, but literally individual (good or bad?) values
You end up with a society ruled by the most hypermasculine sociopathic evil men imaginable
This society leads to the decline of educational institutions, concluded by a rise in religion and tradition once again
And it goes full cycle
See rome

Simple, because the mode of production shapes the superstructure. In Tibet (or was it Nepal? I can't remember) you have a matriarchal society, where women engage in polyandry because of their feudal inheritance law - a women who is married to multiple men prevents the land from being split up.

In modern capitalism, due to lower wages and changing material conditions, traditional family structures are slowly eroded. Women have already some advantages over men, if they decide not to have children. The problem is that in the ideal model of the nuclear family, the man's wage was supposed to make up for the unpaid labor housewifes do. Now this becomes more and more like an outdated conception.

Obviously not, but the question is, is race (as in: Black - Whites - Asians etc.) a valid categorization? Imagine aliens landed an earth with all our biological knowledge, but knew nothing of our social and polticial structures: Would they caterogize human specifications as races the same way we do? Very unlikely, since haplogruops are varying inbetween our racial categories massively. Race is just not a good way to have a biological taxonomy, unless your interpretation of the term varies from the one that you can find, for example, at the US census.

Do you mean to say as in equality should take precedence over practicality and efficiency ? It seems to imply treating everyone the same regardless of performance has inherent value, that how you do the thing is more important than what the outcome of doing the thing in the first place are.

We've been around a while, how many examples of societies or businesses that have achieved true social justice before collapsing?

>mode of production
>citing nepal

Its ALWAYS fucking Nepal with you guys. Its a non-example, an outlier, and a shithole. Nepal is not an argument, because they do nothing better than any other state.

>What does it even mean?

It means that Jews always project.

10/10

moral relativism is an incurable cancer.

The only hope is collapse coincinding with the technology required to enforce some sort of moldbuggian patchwork state in order to preserve some semblance of civilization.

Unfortunately we are slow to learn that some moral structure must be imposed with both overt and underlying systems of enforcement that modern philosophy considers "oppressive"

If you think I was referring to the Maoist rebellion, well, I wasn't. I was simply presenting an example of a feudal mode of production where inheritance laws demand polyandry to prevent particularization. Poland-Lithuania had similar inheritance laws, but of course they couldn't have that because they were a catholic country, and in the end, it went to shit. There was a common joke at that time "a polish noble can't own a horse because the tail of it would already be on another nobles land".

>where women engage in polyandry
Isn't that biologically suboptimal? If there aren't enough men to marry every woman, a lot of wombs aren't busy producing babies. A least polygyny makes some sense but polyandry just doesn't sound like a winning breeding strategy.

iirc some native indians also have matriarchal systems with complex family structures but i don't recall reading about any advantage to those either.

They want to destroy everything by doing a Color/Cultural Revolution.

The Left endgame is Death.

Archives: archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/

Everything can be a social construct when it fits the leftist narrative.
If it doesnt fit the narrative it stops being a social construct.

>there are no values to uphold
But they do, it's equality and social justice above all else. It's just flawed in that it doesn't benefit anyone in the end.

Did it ever occurred to you that the "degeneracy" isn't a cultural marxist plot but simply a natural result of capitalist commodification? Do you think the fact that LGBT marches and that shit gets sponsert by Coca-Cola because it's profitable for them to do so? Do you understand that it's also an inherent contradiction that you want the state to preserve capitalism which ultimately produces these things but also want it to artificially enforce traditional values, whatever that means? If you want a strong nuclear family, you gotta pay them better because right now nobody can afford to marry a housewife.

Notice how, for leftoids, something as absurd and impossible to define as "class" is a valid categorization and everything should revolve around it.

Meanwhile race isnt because it hurts fee fees and it distracts attention for the "class" bullsiht.

>Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources. It is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival

Gielen, U. P. (1993). Gender Roles in traditional Tibetan cultures. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), International handbook on gender roles (pp. 413-437)

Makes sense in a scarce environment like Tibet

A social construct just mean that it is not real. Society created it. If an antropologist can pick up your bones and tell your race and sex. Sex and race are real. Not a social construct
Multiculturalism is a social construct. It goes aganist human nature. Tribalism is a natural human instinct

for now
but watch when the atheism and nihilism fully kick in, then people won't even care about equality and social justice
a clockwork orange style generalized societal psychopathy will ensue

Well equality is an impossible outcome to achieve so there is no society that has achieved 'true social justice' nor will there ever be, nor would it be desirable to any sane person because everything we value and hold dear in life is born of exclusivity.

Before you take the true thinkers of this field at their word It's important to remember that these ideas are labeled Cultural Marxism by their detractors for good reason, they are inherently revolutionary that is to say collapsing a society is the goal. It can be reasonably argued the act of 'critical theory' or 'social justice' need only harm the existing dominant groups and subvert/degrade/degenerate and given enough time destroy the existing superstructure in order for another to replace it i.e be a weapon to achieve another end. Look at what the revolutionary says then compare to the society he creates from the bloody aftermath, many have noted the rank hypocrisy.

Go it

Homosexuality and transgenderism may be genetic. But we still cannot tell if a new born will grow to be. So it could be a result of the environment or a social construct

Do you know how we define class? It's your relationship to the means of production. This is pretty real. It defines how I live.

Meanwhile race, as I described above, is just an outdated biological category. It serves as a mere social or cultural description today. It is also fallacious to assume that biological factors are more important than environmental conditioning, bioessentialism is fucking retarded. Kids who were brought up by wolves literally behave like wolves.

Let me break it down for you before you break your brain. A stop sign is a social construct. Get it?

youtube.com/watch?v=neL8OmGlXsM

If everything is a social construct, that means that your personality was built using social constructs. So, your very self is the random product of a random(?) social experiment.

Homosexuality is not genetic. Prove that it is.

Wolves normally eat the baby humans is the one who behave like a wolf that survi es.
Class is a social construct. One day you are poor but the next you can be rich. You can easily change your class.
The suggestion of overtaking the means of production is an utopia that promises everyone will be rich. But history proves it just make everyone poor.

It actually has. I agree it has exacerbated the problem greatly. Whether it is the true genesis is not so clear.

I don't care for capitalism to be sustained so much as some form of moldbuggian neofeudalism where each person/corporation can purchase sovereignty for their small territory and set their own rules. Essentially creating a series of sovereign REITs that can import people who want to adhere to set principles of that small, independent community (even marxism could thrive across the world in this sort of arrangement of small communities).

If you create a "patchwork" society your community is not a whole nation of 300 million greedy people controlled by a few but a local zone that is under less pressure to commodify/sell out culturally.

>Hurr hurr everything that contradicts my dumb worldview is retarded and outdated

Yeah about as much of an argument as i expected from a communist.

My point wasn't that heterosexual lifelong monogamous marriage was the only way to raise children, but that it was the optimal (so far) way to raise children.

The reproduction pattern that you depict still exists in New Guinea and Africa. It not very well suited for long term planning or transmitting resources from one generation to another.

We have constructed a different, arguably better system which has served us well. In fact, the system you describe currently exists in the African-American community where it has failed miserably to produce functional members of society despite a massive welfare state.

>economic model before all else

Precisely. And the division of labor is so useful that is is even considered a biological innovation. Though it is now wasted in this century, the increase in productivity and output that it brought about (not to mention the time saved for women not having to work all day) increased lifespan past 30 and allowed for more children to be had.

Of course class is a social construct. Where was I denying this? I was just saying that it isn't imaginary, like your personal gender pronouns or whatever.

That neofeudalism is an inevitable consequence of capitalism, as capitalism has a tendency to monopolize over time. Since you are a fascist I assume you want to create some form of corperatism where the state and firms are being combined in their power to serve the good of the nation, with a powerful mass party as an observer? That would be the orthodox fascist position.

Basically what you just described is very similar to some left-libertarian ideas, have a look into Democratic Confederalism in Rojava (its based on Communalism by Bookchin).

lmao I explained my reasoning above

But the African tribes which still exhibit such behavior are pretty much still hunters and gatheres in a way. Of course it is unsustainable once division of labor becomes a thing.

But right now we are facing a reverse trend. Basically a laborer nowadays creates almost twice as much value as his grandfather, but the compensation for it hasn't increased.

Of course, a lot of things also became cheaper - but this is nonetheless caused by imperialist exploitation and sweatshop labor.

Is that you jason?

Perception is a perceptual concept.
If you allow social constructs to exist in your poorly framed reality, you have let the hallucinogens win. Fuck MKULTRA and always skew their results.

...

>Gender and race are social constructs
how is someone even saying this here without much backlash? wtf happened to this place

No but I don't have a problem with him ideologically except he's an edgelord who should really drink less soda.

Also his Third Worldism can be overly dogmatic sometimes.

Dumping infographics because there might actually be some faggots who agree with OP

Gender is really just a question of how you define it m8.

After all English is like the only language that even has a difference between sex and gender

I've noticed after a while that social construct does not have a particularly deep meaning. It uses the word construct to imply that something is artificial, a man made arbitrary notion with no relevance to the real world, so as to suggest that something normal and natural ought to take it's place.

Ironic that liberals would use such arguments because what they wish to put into place is the artificial thing, and what they seek to replace is the natural thing.

...

>Gender is really just a question of how you define it m8
men=XY+penis
women=XX+vagina
is it really that hard?
>After all English is like the only language that even has a difference between sex and gender
they always meant the same thing until recently

Language doesnt change reality faggot.

For all intense and purposes men and women are better at different roles, and this is because of natural selection. Men are still genetically the hunters, women are still genetically the care-takers.

>Gender...is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons...of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder.

Fowlers Modern English Usage, 1926

It never described sex. In Latin "Genus" means grammatical gender as well, and that's where the word comes from.

Then that's part of the sexuality, not the gender role.

We don't know that. As an anthropology major, there are multiple theories accepted by academia, but alone they fail to tell the full story. It's likely women were a little promiscuous, because our balls are size of gorillas' but we're half the size (sperm competition in our past). However, having concealed ovulation and permanent sexual features (thicc ass/breasts), encourages males to stick around and have sex even when the female is not ovulating to ensure one's lineage is passed down. The fact that males are 1.2 times the size of women indicates that males competed a fair amount, likely trying to establish ownership of females. While some females continued to be whores and have secret lovers, it was evolutionarily beneficial to remain monogamous so that the male would share resources with the mother and the child. If the father doubted the lineage of the son, he may have killed it. There's more, but I don't recall all of the details rn, and its hard to summarize multiple academic papers without getting too long and caught up with data.

>Then that's part of the sexuality, not the gender role.
Same difference, why are you arguing semantics?

Meant to respond to this one

ok well you can fuck around with words but there will only ever be man and woman and you know that deep down

lmao words describe reality. Is a man having a higher level of aggression due to testosterone a social construct? Obviously not. Is a girl liking the color pink a social construct? Definitely yes. In Italy pink is traditionally a male color.

If there is anything you are being caught up in semantics because the fact that some behavioral traits men and women usually show in society may or may not be environmentally caused and not by genetics triggers the living fuck out of you

Who the fuck cares about what term is used for what. Faggot, shut up about this. I'm sick of you lefty autists screeching about these arbitrary definitions of words which are just sounds coming out the end opposite to which shit comes out of.

Men and women are different.
Manly men are superior to beta-faggot commies like you.
Womanly woman are superior to the 250 lbs feminazi that you orbitted around until she settled on your limp dick.

Anyone in between Manly Men and Womanly Women should be fucking gassed.

Pink used to be the color of men in the U.S too. The reasoning being it resembled blood. It was changed by like one man around WW2, by changing the colors associated with babies.

They describe reality faglord, they don't make reality. You can't just change words around in the hopes that you can change the way everyone sees reality.

Interesting. My knowledge of anthropology is limited, I was just reiterating what I read in an article ones so I can't really comment on that.

However, the way you describe these things makes me wonder what kind of porn you watch

I think user meant optimal in the social sense, not the biological one. As in monogamous marriages enabled society to run more smoothly, with less sexually frustrated males around to have to send to conquer someone before they tear shit up back home.

Monogamy is optimal if you have enough space and resources to go around and want people to stick around without chimping out.

>Race is a social construct because it's not valid biological taxonomy.
So there are no measurable and quantifiable differences between races ? Can't wait for a proof of that

For some reasons looking at the real life specimen of Sup Forumsacks, whenever they come out of their NEETcave and the massive crossposting between Sup Forums and /r9k/ gives me hard time to take your autistic screeching seriously.

What was I describing which is contradictary to how everybody sees reality? My point can be summerized that I believe no gender exists, not two, not twenty, none. If you follow the definition of sex = biology and gender = enviromental conditioning anyway.

Of course there are (skin color, bones structure, skull shape...) they are just useless to as variables to categorize people in biological terms. The social impact of race (blacks being slaves, etc.) still exists, but biological taxonomy has come a long way since Linnés. Modern biologists use haplogroups, not racial categories.

But it isn't just skin deep. You need to embrace reality, m80

youtu.be/1YfEoxU82us

So what do you make of the modern social justice left then? Are they beneficial or detrimental to your aims?

I despise communism, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this

The black race is not a social construct, but whites are not even considered a group, race or a color of the skin. To progressives being white is just opression and needs to be eradicated for good.

I wish I wasn't joking. The white privilige movement has gain a lot of ground recently. The frankfurt school is getting more and more of a foothold through every part of life.

It means that values are often arbitrary opinions and that memes rules everything around us.

Of course they put a black man besides a white woman. Even facts are part of the miscegenation plan today.

...

>If there is anything you are being caught up in semantics
>No u the post.
Nice, stay classy.
>Is a man having a higher level of aggression due to testosterone a social construct? Obviously not.
It's indeed partially due to testosterone, the hormone exists regardless of it having a name for it, however it's up to the person in how and when aggression manifests, and with endless provocation it's only natural to vent.

>Is a girl liking the color pink a social construct? Definitely yes.
Lol no, that would be personal preference, she's not forced to like a certain colour.
>In Italy pink is traditionally a male color.
That would be social perception, not an enforced construct, as you will have the chance to encounter an Italian who thinks of it as feminine, due to probability.

>some behavioral traits men and women usually show in society may or may not be environmentally caused and not by genetics
If I provoke a person, and they get mad/upset, than that is a natural response to their current environment, this isn't a social construct it's probability in motion.
Also appeal to ambiguity is a logical fallacy; read the sticky.

>or may not be environmentally caused and not by genetics
It is also caused by genetics, as it maps out what a human will be like in it's base character.
Some people are more flamable than others, and this is both due to upbringing and social interactions(environmental probability), but mainly in how the person's DNA has formed it's brain, because the lesser the reasoning skills; the greater the aggression.

>triggers the living fuck out of you
Nice ad hominum bro.

They are libshits, cancer. So called "intersectionality X-ism" is absolutely contradictary to a marxist outlook on society. Pic related. Marx himself kicked out liberal feminists out of the communist movement.

Most of the SJW are liberals who want to preserve the status quo just with thirty more genders. Generally we think that your identity doesn't matter, no matter if you are identifying as a bigender wolfkin or a white nationalist. Class is the only thing we acknowledge as relevant, as class isn't an identity but material reality.

>Progressivism is so confusing.

That's real point. Instead of using standard logic they redefine words and make up terms like "heteronormativity" and "cissexism" to confuse their opponents and shutdown arguments. I

progressivism is confusing cause it requires challenging biases and empathy.
its easy and lazy to be raycist and "redpilled"

>before the neolithic revolution we can assume children only had a mother, while all the men of the tribe would be treated as uncles as you couldn't tell who was the father.
>
>Nuclear family (as a remnant of the extended family) didn't appear before humans became sedentary

this is so long in the past we have already incorporated changes on the genetic level

so do we use these things because they are useul to society? yes. maybe we haven't in the past when we still looked a bit like apes, doesn't make his post wrong.

>That would be social perception, not an enforced construct
What the fuck you mean? Call enforced or not, doesn't matter, it's not based in biology but in nurture. My point was that some behavioral traits men and women display aren't all entirely based on genetics. These traits that aren't based on genetics I'd describe as gender.

Your entire post doesn't make a single argument as to why this is such a heresy to you. I'm agreeing that gender theory can be retarded and isn't really scientific as people mix all sorts of stuff wildly together, but I don't see the inherent problem with looking at people's behavioral traits from a social perspective as gender roles are also based in economics of the family unit. Again, you already admitted bioessentialism is without value but you somehow try to weasel yourself out of this now.

Eh, forgot pic

Yep and this "k strategy" would eventually win out even on the evolutionary level - in certain climates - because the organized humans were just superior to bush subhumans, and if you pissed on the established order you would be kicked out and left with lack of structure and people

>make up terms
Redefining, sure, but it's not like they're attributing definitions to gibberish.

>Ironic that liberals would use such arguments because what they wish to put into place is the artificial thing, and what they seek to replace is the natural thing.

yes PR/propaganda likes to do this trick, confusing you over which side is which.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

I hear the social security wasn't really factored into this chart, meaning the payment towards these services is missing from the chart

Reality is racist.

>The social impact of race (blacks being slaves, etc.) still exists
Yes, slavery still exists, but only it shithole places like Africa, in fact where it originated\

>Modern biologists use haplogroups, not racial categories
Modern biology uses haplogroups when referring to the genetics of an individual. Race is still a good general characterization, You have to remember that there are plenty of physiology insight you can gain by knowing someone's race ( and it's not only skin deep )

Yeah. That's why 50 inch tvs are in every broke niggers house nowadays. Go suck a chode, retard.

>What does it even mean? Progressivism is so confusing.

The Progressive movement is just extremely retarded. That's why it never has and never will make any sense.

>it's not based in biology but in nurture
It's based on the preferences of the individual which is based on both biology and nurture, and not just either. The black and white reasoning is as well a logical fallacy.

>My point was that some behavioral traits men and women display aren't all entirely based on genetics. These traits that aren't based on genetics I'd describe as gender.
It's actually based on the genetics of the individual, however it's true that upbringing can force an opinion or narrative unto individuals, however, the individual will always have a choice, even if they need to lie to hide it.
Also gender = sex why bother arguing the semantics of it?

>Your entire post doesn't make a single argument as to why this is such a heresy to you.
It showcases counter arguments that advocate individualism stemming from genetics and environmental influences, opposed to social brainwashing through enforced "social constructs", again it's better to stick to the argument opposed to derailing it into an ad hominum.

>I'm agreeing that gender theory can be retarded and isn't really scientific
Exactly, it's just typical dis-info tactics to force a narrative, and thus not even a scientific showcase.

>but I don't see the inherent problem with looking at people's behavioral traits from a social perspective as gender roles are also based in economics of the family unit.
The gender roles stem from the base of the sexes, humanity has simply evolved to become more capable of analysing data, and thus we will obviously analyse our own roles as well.
However it's not society that initiated human sex/gender roles; it's nature/genetics that laid the basis for it, and society is based and formed from that point onward.

>Again, you already admitted bioessentialism is without value
Actually I have been advocating it in my posts, you're twisting my words to accommodate your own reasoning. It all stems in biology, and nurture and biology help form the individuals.