Wearing socks *is* a social construct
-
Except in this example, it's a kid using the argument to get out of "anything and everything". This isn't a necessarily a nuanced situation, this is using their own logic against them because they think they found a cheat code to not doing what they don't want to do.
Ah fair! I wasn't super clear, I was more talking about my comment than the original post.
-
Socks serve a practical purpose when combined with shoes. They prevent rubbing (blisters) and they keep the skin cells and oils from your feet from the insides of your shoes.
Shoes serve a practical purpose in that they protect your feet from rocks, glass, and hot pavement. Did our ancestors need shoes? No. But humans have made our environments less friendly to bare feet
What are you talking about? The oldest shoe we've found is roughly 10000 years old.
Our ancestors absolutely needed shoes. That's why they made them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You are a social construct.
And brother, I'm about to collapse.
-
Having a shit is a natural process, however doing it privately in toilets is nowadays somewhat of a social construct.
So, should I stop using the toilet and use your bed instead?(Edit: I didn't think I needed to add an /s but...)
Don't tell that to your kid unless you want them to start pooping in your bed.
-
If my socks have seams at the toes, I wear them inside out. I believe I learned that from Sean Connery in Finding Forrester.
I do that with my knit compression gloves. It's an awesome trick!
-
The proper retort would be, "so?"
"I'll socially construct the back of my hand upside your head you little shit."
-
The next time they say βSocks are a social construct.β Tell them that blisters are punishment for manβs hubris.
Teenagers sometimes have to get blisters a few times before learning that it's wiser to do the smart thing even if it wasn't your idea.
Then again, I know a few adults like that too.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Love is a social construct, guess you aren't getting that either you little shit.
-
This would be a great time to remind him that we live in a society...
Gamers rise up?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Having a parent who clothes and feeds you is a social construct too.
Funny how people think that "social construct" means that something is bad or should be dismissed when none of us would be here without social constructs.At least this time the argument is being made by the only age group where I would give them a pass for being stupid. Unless that kid is past the age of 12, that is.
-
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!
-
Socks serve a practical purpose when combined with shoes. They prevent rubbing (blisters) and they keep the skin cells and oils from your feet from the insides of your shoes.
Shoes serve a practical purpose in that they protect your feet from rocks, glass, and hot pavement. Did our ancestors need shoes? No. But humans have made our environments less friendly to bare feet
I would encourage you to take a hike through Greenland barefoot and come back to me with the "humans have made our environment less friendly to bare feet" line. It is, for the most part, the exact opposite that is the case. Nature is not friendly to bare feet in the slightest hence why humans have been wearing shoes long before recorded history.
-
You're not wrong, it is terrifying to remember that half of the worlds population is dumber than the average person
RIP George
-
With the added /s it still reads like you're using an example to explain why things shouldn't be rejected based on them being social constructs. The edit just reads like you're smug about it. If that's not what you're saying, can you explain what you mean?
can you explain what you mean?
Yes.
-
It took me a while to learn to control my rising angst when my son started deciding he didn't want to eat much some days. Had to learn to trust what he's saying and play it cool with bargaining with him to try things he's decided he suddenly doesn't like and eat just a few of the key food groups he hasn't eaten before deciding he's full.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Same, there are few things more stressful to me than when my daughter doesnβt eat. Learning to be okay with a sorry dinner is a process Iβm still going through
-
That's just dumb.
It's dumb to shoot yourself in the foot or jump off a cliff.
Don't do dumb things.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Both examples are similar to anapodotons. They include an implicit thesis. Don't shoot yourself in the foot because bullets do way more damage than movies let on, your foot will likely never work right again, and even if it does you'll have endured months of easily avoidable pain and suffering. Don't jump off a cliff because you'll likely die and, even if you survive, you'll have to endure a lifetime of debilitation, pain, and suffering, that could have been easily avoided.
These are also similar to thought-terminating cliches and tangentially related to mondegreens. Anapodotons can be insidious. Fluent speakers unfamiliar with the phrase can tell there's more to it and, since the general meaning can be implied through context, folks avoid the awkwardness of admitting their ignorance (something we should all be more comfortable with - but that's a separate discussion) and miss out on the nuance of some "common wisdom".
A bit of common wisdom is that "common sense isn't common". These cultural and psychological quirks manifest in our languages are part of the reason why. Not shooting yourself is a great example because for most people this is an obviously stupid thing to do and, yet, hundreds of people accidentally kill themselves via negligent discharge every year and thousands more are maimed. How often do we believe "don't shoot yourself" is sufficient advice when, in reality, proper safety training is required to keep that person alive? How often do those hearing the common wisdom believe they know all they need for that cliche to work its magic?
There's a lot of value in being aware of these linguistic traps and avoiding them when we think to do so. Like being the child that chooses to stop perpetuating generational trauma and abuse. We can choose better words, better phrases, and stop expecting that other people already know what we take for granted.
-
RIP George
Carlin spoke his voice properly
-
This post did not contain any content.
Nick sounds like a dipshit if he can't figure out how to argue against socks being a social construct.
