• Hylactor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Some additional social constructs they may be more sentimental about: gifts, allowance, summer vacation, breakfast, lunch, dinner, doors, privacy, the internet.

  • saimen@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Borders are a social construct. Yet there are people killing each other about it.

    Your company is a social construct. Yet it provides you with work and money.

    Money is a social construct. Yet your kids still want their allowances.

  • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???

    my issue is that even though “clothing” is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming “clothed” is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn’t exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.

    It’s kinda sad, i guess. I’m usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?

    Socks are not a social construct.

  • ZMonster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    “Very good. That’s exactly right. That also includes early bedtimes, no electronics, and double servings of vegetables. All social constructs that I can establish any time you want.”

    😊 🫴🏀

  • mobotsar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I get that it’s a joke, but wearing socks is not a social construct-- it’s a social convention, but it’s utility is driven primarily by non-social factors. A social construct is an idea created and maintained by society specifically for its social function, which neither socks nor the act or wearing them nor the idea that wearing socks is good, are.

  • Zacryon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Vegetables are a social construct too.

    Afaik, botanically, there is no such thing as a “vegetable”. Only fruits. What we perceive as “vegetable” differs between cultures worldwide.

    • REDACTED@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian

      • unphazed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yeah I had a friend from Grenada that told me this one day and I had trouble understanding the reasoning.

        • REDACTED@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          The American Meat Science Association defines meat as red meat (beef, pork, and lamb), poultry, fish/seafood, and meat from other managed species (AMSA, 2017).

          Fish, by definition, is meat.

          Other simpler definitions around the world sinply say “flesh of an animal”. At that point, you’re arguing that fish isn’t an animal.

    • bluesheep@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The botanical definition is just “edible parts of a plant”. The culinary definition however does differs per culture.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Not that I advocate violence, but not beating your kids, selling them on the street, or making them work in a factory is also a social contract.

    • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Contract yes, as it pertains to laws, but I would argue construct no- since protecting one’s offspring is a natural/biological impulse. It’s non negotiable from a survival viewpoint, and some people have better survival instincts than others.

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        We as creatures behave certain ways because of a result of biology and circumstances. How can you say anything we do isn’t a natural/biological impulse. When did we stop being a part of nature? And stop being controlled by biology?

      • Potatar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.

        • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.

          This is a weird conversation.

          • Potatar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn’ do it, doesn’t mean it’s not “natural”. I don’t know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.

            We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they’d act like waking up to the sun is THE “natural” thing.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              Are you suggesting that if even one human lacks this biological impulse to protect their children, we can’t say that humans generally have a biological impulse to protect their children? That’s absurd. And isn’t this point entirely moot with regards to people who do have that in-built instinct?

  • TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Your feet are nasty. I don’t need to see them.

    Also. The world is nasty. Go raw dog the world and see how long you make it

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    I let my kid go all flower child about the socks. he got athletes foot. Socks SPECIFICALLY are not a social construct. they prevent athletes foot.

    • SketchySeaBeast@lemmy.ca
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Hygiene IS a social construct, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there for a good reason.

      • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        That’s only if you include pointless hygiene like shaving legs and armpits. You’ll legit get skin issues, infections, and possibly attract pests if you don’t wash your ass.

          • HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’d say hygiene is a construct. From that wiki article:

            As mind-dependent objects, concepts that are typically viewed as constructs include the abstract objects designated by such symbols as 3 or 4, or words such as liberty or cold as they are seen as a result of induction or abstraction that can be later applied to observable objects or compared to other constructs.

            With this in mind, hygiene itself cannot be seen directly, and thus abstract. We can see the effects of hygiene (such as a clean body, lack of body odor, or opposite of hygiene, such as athlete’s foot or other diseases), but we cannot see hygiene itself.

  • don@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Good point, kid, and here’s another one: those toys you want me to buy you are a social construct. Playtime? Yep. Social construct. Shall I keep going? Video games are next.