Some additional social constructs they may be more sentimental about: gifts, allowance, summer vacation, breakfast, lunch, dinner, doors, privacy, the internet.
“Sure, but your feet would still get cold.”
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.
Social constructs are Social constructs
Social constructs aren’t practical.
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.
Social constructs are real.things, so here you go
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.
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.
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
Yeah I had a friend from Grenada that told me this one day and I had trouble understanding the reasoning.
those people are morons
Fish is not meat, but it’s also not vegetarian
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.
The botanical definition is just “edible parts of a plant”. The culinary definition however does differs per culture.
“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.”
😊 🫴🏀
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.
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.
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?
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Let’s not bring Elon into this.
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.
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
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.
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?
I’m saying it is not “non negotiable”.
A sandwich is a social construct. But a social construct isn’t always a sandwich.
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.
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.
Hygiene IS a social construct, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there for a good reason.
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.
Exactly. Not all social constructs are bad.
Hygiene is not a construct regardless. I swear people just go on the internet and say things.
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.
I can see my maxi pads.
A physical, tangible thing (maxi pads), related to hygiene (a concept, or construct).
hygiene, engaging in a practice until hygienic, is a construct. the act of scrubbing your skin might not be
Socks keep your shoes from absorbing sweat and help prevent blisters. They’re useful beyond the social construct.
Arguments like these don’t work with kids. Let them experience themselves what is best for them. And have spare socks ready in case they change their mind afterwards
Even if the argument doesn’t persuade them at the time it still makes sense to point it out to them so that they are (hopefully) aware of it later.
Fully agree. Always verbalize your thoughts and intentions. Give the kids the ability to learn.
Ok but wearing shoes is a social construct. People didn’t wear shoes for thousands of years before shoes came along and they were just fine and full of blisters.
Wearing shoes is definitely not just a social construct. They protect your feet.
Protecting feet is a social construct.
You are a social construct.
And brother, I’m about to collapse.
To some degree that’s true. But these days the ground contains more dangerous objects than it used to. Specifically hazardous man-made stuff
If it was just nature and we still mostly had like forest floor and such, then probably for the most part it’d be safe yeah. Well, with the exception of plants or animals that could damage your feet or bite you
The cholla cactus:
When Moses was walking through the desert for 40 years, he wasn’t just trying to fit in.
deleted by creator
Deleted by GOD?!?!?
I don’t know what the social aspect is apart from how the socks appear, but this isn’t why they exist.
Edit: Damn. Some of you are threatened by not knowing what a social construct is but really want to argue about socks instead of asking DDG so you can understand wtf is going on before leaving a comment.
I’d be proud of this shit show, OP 🤣
I love when people say “ackchyually you’re wrong” without offering an alternative.
Replying to wrong comment?
You’ll have to explain otherwise, since it makes no sense based on what I said.
Then why do they exist?
if you didn’t wear socks then you’ll have to wash your shoes daily or risk getting something like a yeast infection of the foot or athletes foot.
Right, so what Boomer already said.
Warmth, protection, hygiene.
If you were born the only person on earth, you would eventually have something like socks on your own accord. This is function, not social. They wouldn’t be Xmas themed though, since no society exists to have invented Xmas and to show off your socks to.
Social constructs are, by definition, ideas or concepts.
The guy they found frozen in a glacier in the Alps had grasses stuffed into his moccasins as primitive socks.
Functional construct
Not wearing stinky shoes is a social construct.
I got me some of them washable insoles
washable incels
theyd be less likely to be incels if they were washable
Reminds me of the time I saw people arguing on Reddit about the phrase “time is a social construct” where some people were completely incapable of understanding what that means and conflating the concept of time with the fundamental physics thingymcgee (idk how to call it and entity feels wrong).
People were trying so hard to explain that minutes, months, seasons, etc. are all arbitrary things made up only for them to retort with “but a year is a full rotation of the sun” or “seasons exist because that’s how the planet changes its climate”.
the fundamental physics thingymcgee (idk how to call it and entity feels wrong)
Your not wrong, “thingymcgee” is the technical term but it’s still a social construct just like gravity.
One can argue everything we know is a social construct
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_science)
Even social media posts, according to postconstructivism
Some social constructs serve a purpose.
I like Max Stirner’s perspective. Like you said, they can be useful - but we can also give them too much authority over us. It’s important to be aware of that.
Yeah, fuck socks! They don’t own me!
Exactly! “Boys” socks, “girls” socks, no - my socks.
Why are socks gendered.
Exactly!
Exactly. Money is a useful construct, but if you look at everything associated with it it’s insane. A tool for tracking the value of goods and services has resulted in wall street, crypto currency, and people burying gold in their yards. It’s become a status symbol to hold this placeholder for labor without doing labor.
I’m not necessarily on board with a moneyless society anytime soon, but I am definitely currency critical.
Currency is an excellent example.
Groups or organizations are another.
Yeah!
Mammals are a social construct. They still serve a purpose.
What matters is what purpose they serve. Not many people are opressed by the concept of mammals.
