Social constructs

"we are living a post-positivist world, everything is a social construct"

How do we debunk this theory? Or where is the line between when it is applicable and when it is overreaching?

I'm asking because that quote was said to me yesterday and I didn't refute it.

everything is a social construct, which means society agrees on it, which means you can't just change a word's meaning as you please and expect to be taken seriously.

so you created a contradiction by assuming it was true and then finding a contradiction?

I think I see what you are saying
but will it work?

every thing is a social construct

Thus everything is because it is agreed upon by society to be that.

so a bank must be a social construct

a bank must be a bank because society interacts with it as that

but isn't a bank a thing in itself?

if we agree that a bank should be constructed differently then we can make it into another thing... but it will no longer be a bank, correct?

so then isn't it not social constructed?

well it usually goes like this
>everything is a social construct
>therefore everything is arbitrary
>therefore my version of x is just as valid as yours
>therefore if you disagree with me you're literally hitler
but the issue is that, while it may be arbitrary, a meaning is agreed upon by the society you live in, and an individual is bound to live by the rules of society (because if he doesn't he's shunned/fined/imprisoned/killed/etc)

the only reason this whole "muh social construct" way of thinking has taken root is because of the jews's desire to destroy the west from within, and convincing ~100 iq people, intelligent enough to follow a logical reasoning but not intelligent enough to understand its potential faults (watch jbp's lecture on this) to yell about muh social constructs

Do we live in a post-posivitist world?
If we do, what does it matter?
Was posivitism demonstrably correct in it's methods, axioms, arguments?
Isn't the idea of 'social construct' is just a social construct?

the war on psychology studies.

We have to return to first principles and argue from there the validity of objective truth. Also fuck continentals.

1. This example literally cannot exist. Find another.
2. Every social construct derives from biology, physics or some other area of logic.
3. Don't. Not worth your time.

> Every social construct derives from biology, physics or some other area of logic.
Or is completely artificial, avoids objective reality and will bring misery to whomever bases his life on it.

oh and
>will it work?
no, you can't reason with these people, they'll just yell at you and say you're literally hitler and are literally raping them
the best you can do is influence people who are on the fence

>Every social construct derives from biology, physics or some other area of logic.
This is the best argument against social constructs. For example, some people try to say that beauty is a social construct (#healthyatanyweight) and therefore try to assert that everyone is beautiful in their own way. The fact of the matter is that we are biologically programmed to be disgusted by 400 pound land whales

what scale does the social construct work with, a single society or all societies of the planet, at once.

where do "social constructs" come from? neverneverland?

no, social constructs are biological constructs

ignore retards. make fun of them if you have to, but generally just best to ignore them

Well I was hoping to use a derivation to show it false.

so

I would want to prove that, not (everything is a social construct).

ass id

everything is a social construct

so x is a social construct

therefor x can be socially obstructed to be y

but y =/= x so therefore contradiction etc

Look up Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. They've both explicitly gone over the answer.

The problem with extreme relativism is that it cancels out the idea of progress. We're no better today than we were years ago, and we'll be no better years from now than we are today.

It's fundamentally nihilistic and impractical.

The best way to attack it in general cases is with mockery. Generally doing the stuff Sup Forums specializes in.

>Don't. Not worth your time.
it is though... everyone around me is singing the tune and its fucking annoying

Just ask them if gravity is a social construct. If no then you win. If yes just laugh at them

from what I see job says that the point where pm got it wrong is that not all interpretations are correct

I think they would say that because other things interpret gravity differently it wouldn't be gravity to them therefore gravity is a social construct

JP not job

If you're talking about gender... Well, maybe don't marry things that are social constructs (what people where, how they do their hair, etc.) with biological sex and you won't have as many transgendered people.

I still think there wouldn't be twenty billion genders if people didn't think that the fucking toys kids play where connected to genitalia.

Gravity affecting things differently does not make it a social construct. Ask how specifically if they try to worm out of it

we could talk about genders

Gravity as a force is in a certain sense just a simplification of the effects that the curvature of spacetime has on objects though.

...

so you would say that gravity is gravity no matter how it effects things, for example a bug and gravity interact differently than a deer and gravity in different contexts, it doesn't mean that gravity isn't present in both situations. or that gravity isn't gravity in one of the contexts

I think that sounds correct

It's sort of like the centrifugal "force". It Is very practical to think of it as a force in certain frames of reference. Since it's impossible to have an objective frame of reference it's impossible to assert which body is actually moving towards the other.

hmm
I see

That's the jist of it. Just don't let them pilpul their way out of it

would the bug and the deer define gravity differently though? whats the definition of gravity?

perhaps that is their rebuttal

>Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including objects ranging from atoms and photons, to planets and stars. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy (including light) cause gravitation and are under the influence of it.
This is the first part of the wiki on Gravity. Both are affected by gravity in the same way, although the deer has a greater mass than the bug

Things with energy bend spacetime. Unless acted upon by an external force, objects follow a line that is straight according to their perspective. Just like how lines on the earth don't remain parallel, lines through the curved spacetime can diverge too. These lines could form loops making an orbit or they could be trying to pass through the earth but the earth then asserts a force upon that object, preventing it from going further.

So in that sense gravity as a force is sort of construction. Whether that be a social or scientific construction is up for debate considering it's observed both in society and in science.

Yea but certainly that is happening outside of interpretation, right?

According to a satellite, it's been following a straight line since it's engine shut down. According to us it's been orbiting the earth in an ellipsoid.

Honestly you should just wait until they put you in a self defense situation wherby you have no option other than dispatching them to save your own life, legally.

People who honestly buy into this shit are beyond the pale and can not be reasoned with. Social constructivists are litterally worse than commies and n*ggers

Tell the faggot to jump off the roof and prove that gravity is a "social construct". Free your mind, Neo.

so that means that the gravity to the satellite is not the same gravity to us?

lmao labels

The laws of physics aren't social constructs. Trees don't start falling up when there is no longer a civilization capable of enforcing the law of gravity.

how do we debunk it?
well you cant do it in real life
and the second one from the top is forked the answer is three

No, but the ways in which we describe the natural phenomenon is definitely a social construct. Trust the data, not the method.

"prove it"

Two and two incomplete ones that got fused together.

If everything is a social construct, then everything being a social construct is a social construct itself. So, society can change it at will. So, we can make reality objective and not a social construct again through concerted political activism and education.

...

>social construct
The idea of social constructs is a social constuct.

>using an object that can't exist in reality to illustrate contradictory perspectives in reality

genius level for sure

...

So? Obviously language doesn't matter to you, if you think saying "trust the data, not the method" means anything. Reality doesn't change or disappear no matter what words you describe it with, that's what makes it real.

kek

The only thing I can discern from that picture is that there are two sticks. No use in arguing over the other arbitrary bullshit.

You just walk away, they are after all just a social construct.

There are no sticks. Just a poorly drawn cartoon that attempts to look like a row of sticks, but the cartoonist forgot how many sticks he was trying to draw halfway done, and decided to pretend his failure somehow had a deeper meaning.

I think what you are able to do with your body is not a social construct. So, jumping for example. Now, what words/symbols we use to describe that action may be a social constract, but the essence itself of something can never be a social construct. Though ofcourse its not really clear what the essence of something is, we used to think it were atoms, but we've gone way deeper than that by now.

Your genes are not a social construct. Society, and its constructs, are an outgrowth of your genes and epigenetic factors.

No one uses social construct correctly anymore
It means something that exists exclusively within a society
Language is a social construct
Manners are social construct
Gender roles are social constructs

But things like sex aren't because society doesn't teach it. Sex happens because someone wants to get off.
Consent is a social construct.

Social constructs can't be anything other than behaviors. Even ideologies aren't technically social constructs, rather the submission to them in the form of government or religion are.

>try to make an analogy about reality
>express it using impossible shapes
The absolute state of intellectuals

He's saying "we call it a bank, and lump similar businesses together and call them banks. If society out grows that definition, and decides banks must be digital, than the physical buildings won't be called banks"
For instance, we don't call native americans "indian" anymore because we call people from india that. The native americans never changed

alright well I'm getting off. I just dont like the idea that people want to change policy according to this idea.

and thanks for al the responses

social constructs aren't bad, in fact social norms are mostly a means avoiding social conflict. the ideas of property and self-ownership are deeply ingrained social constructs, but it's impossible to come up with any alternative that doesn't result in permanent conflict.

social constructs are often less social and more a reflection of our physical reality. you wouldn't say rape is a social construct because it relies on a constructed notion of self-ownership. that's because given our physical reality the notion of self-ownership is self-evident.

also the image makes no sense and hinges on misuse of the word valid

Both parties in that picture are wrong.

One says four, but his statement is inaccurate because there has been no agreement on the size of the objects. The other says three, and he is wrong for the same reason.

Unless there is a quantification statement for the objects being argued over as to a fact that they are all the same, then both of them are wrong.

This picture also deals with directed perception. You perceive four at one end, three at the other. There is no social construct, here, just a trick of light, shadow and lines.

Both of them are wrong.

tell them to stop argueing over unimportant bullshit and get back to work.

That is not a force, it is a reaction to a force, have a nice day.

>I drew an optical illusion. Take that, reality!

Name two points that contradict each other but both are factually correct.

We don't know how gravity works, we can only observe the interaction of objects on this or other planets with the planetary body itself.

If we understood gravity we would not even be having this conversation. Because we would paste dump the actual reality of it.

Currently there is two pervading theories.

That kind of thing only exists on quantum level

The idea that you can debunk this theory is a social construct. You're trapped user.

"Only a woman has a Vagina"

"What, you hateful sexist prick, trannies have vaginas and if U deny that, I'll sic the SJW mob on yer ass!"

Again we do not actually know how gravity works. We can work within that lack of knowledge but must realize that true understanding of it for us is currently out of reach, due to our own limitations.

No it doesn't. It means that you don'y really understand how gravity works. What its main functioning is.

Trannies have no vaginas, have a nice day.

Turns out the (((illustrator))) was tricking them all along

There's an extent to which it's true. We can't *just* rely on the fact that, say, the genders are biologically different, and niggers are useless teeny-brained savages.
We need to actively want to organize society in such a way that women and men have distinct social roles. Women are obviously designed to enjoy being caregivers, but we as a society have to choose to say "we want women in roles that will make them happy, and women tend to be happiest when they're mothers".

It's just as valid to say "sex is pleasureful so lol we should all just le fuck all the time and take birth control so we can fuck more without having to deal with any consequences like having kids and perpetuating our civilization beyond our basest impulses :)"

>How do we debunk this theory?
"we are living on a flat earth"
>how do we debunk this theory

you don't. You ignore nonsense.

Because ignoring idiots worked well so far

Yeah, the flat earth thing is a fallacy trap. the person touting it is touting fallacy, they will use fallacy to argue for it. When you use truth and data, they continue to use the fallacy. Just better to let them sit there and lie to themselves, instead of you.

Things not being social constructs is evident. Only an idiot believes such nonsense.

Slap the bitch in the face and tell them pain is a social construct.

Moral relativity follows.
Disengage.

>be me
>click link on Sup Forums for tdbnn.com
>look at it, quick read some of it, find commentary.
>disappoint
>?

This. Only the two outside ones are complete.

Read Plato, then Kant, then marxist dialectic historicism and refute it yourself. I don't believe you can, because I believe it holds legitimate points. You don't need to agree with cultural marxist to believe in social constructionism. Do as Joseph Campbell and Evola and argue that traditionalism is the best construction.

Call him demagogue for denial of nature, biology, phisics, chemestry... these are not social constructs

moral relativism a shit

Science grounded in falsifiable theories with strong predictive power, and moral theory grounded in the logical implications of the most universal moral axioms we can find.

Ignore faggoty faggots who say shit like this.

"that isn't reality, you created an illusion to push your point"

fucking leftists

He's right, though. All social constructs are imaginary. All man-made laws can be broken, as surely as all laws of physics cannot be. If penalties for breaking man-made laws are not rigidly enforced, with the same ruthlessness as nature enforcing the laws of physics, then man-made laws become just pretty words, not even worth the wind and spittle it took to speak them.

...

call them the n word

Everything is kind of Social Construct, because we live socially and human minds "construct" things by thinking. There are some things, like science, which rely on collective understandings of concepts that try to break out of that by making sure enough people agree that It's Not Just Them thinking it. So with the aggregate viewpoint made by Smarties, you're able to approach something in an unbiased, un-constructed way.

Art, on the other hand, is maximum social construction; its humans thinking about purely human things, having opinions on human stuff. That's all built up from the society you're from and the society of humanity.

Basically, while everything is "constructed," some things are more so than others, based on how much involvement societies at large had in imagining up the thing to begin with. The physical things, not so much, but their categorization? Definitely.

is this post too reddity, who cares