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
Sure, if that's a reasonable option, but letting the kid hurt themselves isn't always practical. Letting the kids find out 'messing with the pot of boiling water is bad' the hard way, as an example, is not what I would consider good parenting.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Same, there are few things more stressful to me than when my daughter doesn’t eat. Learning to be okay with a sorry dinner is a process I’m still going through
"You've made a correct observation, now please provide an argument why the social construct of x should not be adhered to. X is dumb and I don't wanna is not sufficient."
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.
And, while it's good to challenge dumb social constructs, you should pick your battles. Nobody can fight all dumb social constructs at the same time. Is wearing socks really where you want to focus your energy?
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.
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.
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.
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
Our ancestors DID need shoes. Footprints in South Africa dated to be between 75K and 136K years old show footwear in use. We invented shoes possibly 100,000 years before we invented written language.
I'm giggling at the idea of ancient people's wearing socks with Crocs, but I can't help but feel that clogs specifically might leave a different footprint.
Not really. Socks used to be the layer of what you wore first if needed, and then wrapped your feet in animal skins as the extra outer layer we would now consider "shoes." Shoes and socks were just sort of a combined foot bag/bundle for thousands of years, and many cultures developed socks and/or shoes independently, meaning they are not a social construct if numerous cultures are inventing them for practical purposes.
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.
Feet will naturally build up thick, tough, resilient calluses in natural environments. There have been some interesting studies done on this topic with indigenous groups.
Which indigenous groups don't wear shoes? Genuinely curious. In North America, moccasins are pretty well-known. I understand that part of the need stems from climate though. I'm more curious about what terrain an indigenous group might live in that can be safe to live barefoot.
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.
"Sure socks are a social construct, but so are the things that let you eat ice cream, watch your favorite streaming service, or play your favorite video game. In fact the only non-social construct actions you involve yourself in are eating, sleeping, and expelling bio waste. Even those you seem to have no problem follow the social rules around. If you'd like to abandon society and escape into nature free of the bounds of social constructs, you're welcome to do that when you're 18 and can afford enough to buy a plane ticket to Fairbanks, Alaska. Until then, you have to put on your socks."
If you'd like to abandon society and escape into nature
Where, exactly, can you do that? There's really no unclaimed nature out there anymore, at least none that can let a person survive on their own. And if you're not surviving on your own, you're part of a society.
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...)
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.
Ha, I've had that happen when our kids were little yet didn't think of that at all. Thanks for making me laugh and bringing back the nightmare of the midnight pooper 🤣
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?
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".
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's a bad thing to be ignored.
Being alive is a social construct. Humans decided that some things counted as alive, and other things did not. Nature doesn't care if a bunch of chemical reactions are happening inside a cell, or in a glass tube. It has no objective definition of "alive".
I could see that, thanks.
I still don't understand why there's like a hundred comments saying the same thing slightly differently, looks a bit fake. I don't have the time to go through all of those, but it reminds me of account sellers trying to get some legitimate-looking history. Shame if that's the case
I mean, if you have daughters send em to the work the corner. Probably a much better ROI if you can overlook being your daugher's pimp.
Sadly, the younger the daughter, probably the better ROI both over time and initially. Now I feel gross for recognizing that evil exists in this world as more than just a concept, some people embody it.
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.
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.
Very, good. That’s correct. However social constructs have consequences for non-adherence. As much as I agree with and wold like to support your stance, this is not something for which I’m willing to invest my energy or time to resolve.
Your compliance and the requirement from me, the adult, to you the child; yep, this sucks. When I’m no longer charged with your care and have completed my duty to prepare you to operate with the constructs of society, you may make this decision for yourself.
Until that time, you can put your socks on, or I will. Your choice. Love you.
In the other vein of this, I hate sock and shoes, so I’m pretty much good with skipping all of this. There are consequences that come with that decision too.
You would still be carrying the social constructs you have internalized throughout your life. You probably have the ability to think logically, and refer to things by their names, but logical thinking and language are also social constructs.
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 think the point is the fact it's a social construct on its own is neither pro or against the thing itself, rather that it can/should be able to be questioned.
Yes wearing socks is a social construct, but it provides inherent benefits such as reducing the smell produced by your feet and lingering in the shoes. It also helps protect your feet further in some ways then just a shoe alone would.
Sure, things should be questioned, but 9 out of 10 times where I have seen someone bring up social construct as an argument it has always been negative, always used to dismiss the so-called social construct. I can't really recall a single time where it has been used by people who weren't going through a rebellious phase where it's all about being a contrarian and rarely about being genuinely curious about the validity of this and that social construct. Sometimes I have also seen things that are objectively not social constructs being labeled social constructs so I have a hard time taking it seriously when it's brought up.
Yeah I don't disagree that a lot of the time, especially when used by kids or edge lords it's moreso just a way to try to end conversation, but I do think it's worth having that discussion when it comes up if they're in good faith.
Like here the op should absolutely explain why it is a social construct instead of what it appears they're implying they do which is just... Either give up or probably force the kid to do it anyway without explaining.
I was one of those kids who always asked why and most adults just wanted me to shut the fuck up. 🤷♂️ I definitely also was an edge lord in my teens and grew out of that for the most part, but throughout I didn't lose my curiosity.
I think a lot of kids have that curiosity beaten out of them unfortunately and we should try to encourage it more. Idk tho I swore off having kids
Definitely. I also think that this specific sock case is pretty innocent and a good excuse to have a stimulating discussion with the kiddo about it. I also don't get why the parent appeared to have just given up, because I do think that one of the most fun conversations I have ever had have been when I talked with kids about how the world works and they ask me questions where I have to think before answering.
And I am completely agreeing with you that it is worth talking about if people are in good faith. It was just never something I came across in the wild a few years back. It was, as you said, always used as a way to end a discussion and actually to get people to not question anything. It's a social construct, ergo it is bad and questioning why it's supposedly bad makes you a bigot. So I just have a very ingrown adverse reaction to that term whenever I see it.
Sucks that your inquisitive nature was dampened, but honestly, I think it's one of the great things we can do for ourselves in adulthood - keep asking questions and find the answers ourselves. I went through a weird knowledge-gathering phase for a few years while working on a worldbuilding project. Got into things I would have never thought about otherwise. Just constant questions about how this and that works, what is this, what is that? Why are things like this? Who does this and that in society? How are continents formed? Where does coffee grow any why? Do dreadlocks remain dreadlocks as they grow? (They do) How were languages formed? How were alphabets formed? How are parasites beneficial to the ecosystem? Can you surgically change a person's eye color? (You can) How did the Ottoman Empire fall and why? Would gooseberry lollipops be popular with kids? How long does it take to bake bread in a volcano? How old is the oldest tree in the world? (That's how I learned about Prometheus and the infuriating end to a 5000+ year long lifespan because one stupid university graduate decided that cutting it down for science was more important than letting it live).
Yadda yadda yadda. Honestly, it becomes kind of addictive once you get going with these types of questions. It's a lot of fun.
I hope you still ask questions, my friend! Don't let that part of you die 🤗
Luckily I ignored everyone telling me to stop and once I got the internet... Yeah similar to your paragraph lol the rabbit hole of how and why is deep!
I've never really had many techy friends/family members so that's where a large amount of my own research/rabbit holes usually go lol.
Like a few months ago I did a whole home server/homelab setup with proxmox several LXCs etc just from a desire to learn. I found Linux way back at age 12 but didn't really dig too far beyond being able to sit in the corner of our empty house so I could reach my neighbors shared wifi and watch anime/Yt (laptop literally did not function on windows XP when it was gifted to my dad for comparison lol)
Powerautomate for work has been a great time sink and a ton to learn there still and I'm learning how to do sysadmin and web coding things as well.
For like rando interesting facts, it's hard because without a trigger I can't usually just come up with a fact even though I might have gone down a 20+tab Wikipedia rabbit hole in a subject haha
Alright kid, do you know what isn't a social construct? Foot fungus. You know what prevents foot fungus, and fungus that literally eats your skin and enlarges your toenails 3 times their normal height from the bed of your nail and is incredibly hard to treat and cure? The social construct of dry socks.
At this point you Google pictures of athlete's feet, toenail fungus, and open the yeast you bought yesterday and make them smell it.
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?
Not hitting dumdums on the head with a hammer whenever they say something silly is a social construct.
Hitting dumdums on the head with a hammer when they do could also be a social construct.
The usefulness of either method might be disputed by some but that there is practical social and individual value in not being murdered for a bad take should be obvious.
The criticism of "that's just a social construct" is not that it is one and is therefore meaningless, but that being a construct means it could be flawed.
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.
Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.
That's because you had a bad take that illogically separates the biological demands of organisms and their communities from aspects of social organization
There is no separation, social behaviors are also adaptations to the environment.
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?
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?
Socks have a practical use, they wick sweat away from your feet - this is practical in low temps where you will wear a cotton sock with a wool sock on top of it
As someone that grew up hating socks (parents only bought the ones with a thick seam at the toe), yes, the requirement to wear socks is a social construct. There are other ways to avoid smelly feet.
Currently, I wear shoes with washable insoles and I have multiple sets of these insoles. I also rotate between shoes, and these shoes can also go in the wash.
I do wear (nice, seamless) socks when I go hiking, but for day-to-day at the office they're unnecessary.
I was going to reply with "wait until their feet are in pain after a day without socks", but then your post happened. Looks like not everyone is built the same.
huh, i did not know there are more reasons for wearing socks than your feet being cold.
after a certain temperature i physically cannot wear socks as my feet get too hot. i either get to put on sandals, or i'll take those full shoes and socks off in the middle of whatever bullshit forces them on me
I get that it's a joke, but wearing socks is not a social construct-- it's a social convention, but its 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.
I have no problem believing that every society has ludicrous cultural vestiges that can undoubtedly be traced back to a religious practice. For example, some Pope might declare that fish isn't meat based on an example of linguistic sophistry to protect the fishing industry.
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.
Clothes as a concept started with utilitarian purposes like staying warm or cool. There are a lot of social constructs around clothes including when and what is worn in what contexts, but not the reason they exist in the first place.
I moved to an area that should be 5 degrees cooler on average than home, but this summer is killing me and I have a lot of stuff outside to work on, plus I recently got back on my meds, which all have heat sensitivity advisories so, yeah... probably not helping, but bipolar meds are generally fairly necessarily, unfortunately.
So, the question: Where could I purchase a legit Bedouin robe for the cooling effects; preferably online as I don't think they have too many robe shops in central AR?
I'm not afraid to look like a weirdo in my own back yard.
Hell the neighbors on one side a retired potheads with strong hippy vibes, the other side is a young family of musicians.... the dude rocks a waxed handle bar mustache regularly so I really don't care for his opinions on style. To each their own.
Thawb or dishdasha is the thing you're looking for, and easily available online. My friend brings me back some from Kuwait: the current batch is from https://aljazzerakw.com/ Truly the world's comfiest clothing
Some additional social constructs they may be more sentimental about: gifts, allowance, summer vacation, breakfast, lunch, dinner, doors, privacy, the internet.
With clothing specifically, it generally has a purpose. Socks can make you more comfortable, warm up your feet, pull sweat away from your skin and generally reduce odors... Not all of those in all cases, mind you, but depending on the circumstances and the type of sock, any/all of these could be the case.
Undergarments in general have similar stories.
All undergarments also play a role in keeping your over garments cleaner. Changing out your underpants and throwing on yesterday's jeans can get you through a day with nearly no compromises... Depending on how dirty your jeans get on an average day.
Over clothes protect you from getting dirty to a limited extent, they'll block/absorb spills that reduces the amount you have to wash/bathe/shower... It's easier to just throw on a new shirt than get into the shower and clean yourself up. Same with pants and other over garments.
Outerwear usually provides a protective element, eg jackets can help prevent things like thorns from scratching you, or keep you warm in cold weather, or dry in wet weather...
Clothes, to me, are a useful thing to be wearing, each piece serving it's own small function, all of it coming together to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
There's plenty of social constructs, this is true, but clothing definitely has a practical purpose, along with so many other things.
"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."
Tell that kid that yes, everything is a social construct. But without social constructs he'd be dead. Wearing socks might be all that's keeping him alive.
If people don't like social constructs, go build a shack in wilderness and don't ever make contact with other human beings again. That isn't to say there are things we do for tradition, or societal norms that constrain us in silly ways but "social construct" is not some get out of jail free excuse.
Socks keep your shoes from absorbing sweat and help prevent blisters. They’re useful beyond the social construct.
Not wearing stinky shoes is a social construct.
I got me some of them washable insoles
washable incels
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
Sure, if that's a reasonable option, but letting the kid hurt themselves isn't always practical. Letting the kids find out 'messing with the pot of boiling water is bad' the hard way, as an example, is not what I would consider good parenting.
I think it's pretty clear they're referring to uncomfortable stuff, not dangerous stuff. Obviously don't let them do dangerous stuff.
Exactly. Always protect your little ones. It is okay if they experience negative consequences, as long as it doesn’t harm them.
Trying to drink from a glass of water and get fully soaked is okay, even if the experience is not entirely positive.
Touching a hot oven is not okay. Here you have to protect them. The best you can do is try to explain why it is not okay to touch it.
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 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
Next time the kid asks for an allowance, say that money is a social construct
parents feeding children is a social construct.
See, I dunno about that one. I have a very strange and almost primal urge to feed kids. I think it's generic programming.
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.
Same, there are few things more stressful to me than when my daughter doesn’t eat. Learning to be okay with a sorry dinner is a process I’m still going through
Same with wearing socks... in my case at least.
I absolutely do not have that programming.
"You've made a correct observation, now please provide an argument why the social construct of x should not be adhered to. X is dumb and I don't wanna is not sufficient."
Those sound like good enough reasons to me
I think something being dumb is a perfectly valid reason to not do the thing.
"it's just dumb" is as valid of an argument as "it just makes sense". You need a thesis along the lines of "X happens because Y".
That's just dumb.
It's dumb to shoot yourself in the foot or jump off a cliff.
Don't do dumb things.
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.
Was kinda dumb of you to write all that
Nuh uh. 😝
Sorry, we've already established that's not a valid argument.
You're not wrong, it is terrifying to remember that half of the worlds population is dumber than the average person
RIP George
Carlin spoke his voice properly :/
"No, you justify your position."
They get that from their stuffed tiger.
Something being a social construct doesn't mean it's not real, or ignoring it won't negatively affect you.
Laws, money, etc. are all social constructs.
And, while it's good to challenge dumb social constructs, you should pick your battles. Nobody can fight all dumb social constructs at the same time. Is wearing socks really where you want to focus your energy?
This would be a great time to remind him that we live in a society...
Nah, kinda the worst time really. Take a good look at society right now and one could argue we utterly failed and should reject it.
Reference. I was just suggesting that he encourage his son to become a gamer memelord is all.
How to spot Americans on topics not related to America.
Bottom text
Is best text.
And the thing stopping the kid from being forced into child labor is a social construct.
"You can either be a social construction-worker, or a real-ass child construction-worker."
Wait till he finds out that time is a flat circle
Gamers rise up?
Your mom is a social construct.
Fuckin’ gottem.
Haha, I'm just picturing a dad saying, "so is your mom and I fucked the shit out of her. Now go put on your socks."
Edit: stupid autocorrect. stupid me for not noticing.
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.
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
Our ancestors DID need shoes. Footprints in South Africa dated to be between 75K and 136K years old show footwear in use. We invented shoes possibly 100,000 years before we invented written language.
Do they show shoes or do they show sandals?
Normally not a big difference, footwear is footwear. But, if we're talking about socks, then the difference becomes relevant again.
Undetermined. Just the bottom of the shoes made an imprint.
I'm betting crocs.
I'm giggling at the idea of ancient people's wearing socks with Crocs, but I can't help but feel that clogs specifically might leave a different footprint.
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.
It's really social norms, not anything else. There are probably more sharp and pointy things in the wilderness, then where we walk day to day.
My dream would be able to walk around the office barefoot and have it not even be considered weird.
Hookworm infections are definately in decline due to wearing shoes. Ill take shoes over hookworms.
I don't think anyone's feet would enjoy walking on asphalt at noon at 35°+
Plus people who lived in the wilderness famously had long lives
Not really. Socks used to be the layer of what you wore first if needed, and then wrapped your feet in animal skins as the extra outer layer we would now consider "shoes." Shoes and socks were just sort of a combined foot bag/bundle for thousands of years, and many cultures developed socks and/or shoes independently, meaning they are not a social construct if numerous cultures are inventing them for practical purposes.
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.
The natural world is pretty unfriendly to bare feet, too.
Feet will naturally build up thick, tough, resilient calluses in natural environments. There have been some interesting studies done on this topic with indigenous groups.
Which indigenous groups don't wear shoes? Genuinely curious. In North America, moccasins are pretty well-known. I understand that part of the need stems from climate though. I'm more curious about what terrain an indigenous group might live in that can be safe to live barefoot.
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.
"Sure socks are a social construct, but so are the things that let you eat ice cream, watch your favorite streaming service, or play your favorite video game. In fact the only non-social construct actions you involve yourself in are eating, sleeping, and expelling bio waste. Even those you seem to have no problem follow the social rules around. If you'd like to abandon society and escape into nature free of the bounds of social constructs, you're welcome to do that when you're 18 and can afford enough to buy a plane ticket to Fairbanks, Alaska. Until then, you have to put on your socks."
Where, exactly, can you do that? There's really no unclaimed nature out there anymore, at least none that can let a person survive on their own. And if you're not surviving on your own, you're part of a society.
Dying by exposure to the nature or elements is very natural. Living a long and healthy life is a social construct.
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...)
Not accepting every social construct isn't the same as rejecting every social construct.
You could've just said, "please shit in my bed."
This is a counter, specifically, to " because it is a social construct, therefore I won't do it."
It's more nuanced. It's 'this is a social construct, therefore I can just decide whether I want to accept it, and I dont'
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.
Don't tell that to your kid unless you want them to start pooping in your bed.
Ha, I've had that happen when our kids were little yet didn't think of that at all. Thanks for making me laugh and bringing back the nightmare of the midnight pooper 🤣
Nah, use the designated shitting street just like everyone else
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?
Yes.
"Yes, but that doesn't automatically mean it's wrong or a bad thing.
'Your allowance is a social construct, so I guess we won't be doing that anymore..."
The next time they say “Socks are a social construct.” Tell them that blisters are punishment for man’s 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.
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".
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
It is a social construct, and we live in a society… so put your damn socks on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHhbdXCzt_A
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's a bad thing to be ignored.
Being alive is a social construct. Humans decided that some things counted as alive, and other things did not. Nature doesn't care if a bunch of chemical reactions are happening inside a cell, or in a glass tube. It has no objective definition of "alive".
Why is everyone is this comment section saying the same thing? Did I miss the part where they argue it's a bad thing?
The context is a kid using it to get out of doing shit, so I'd say it's a bad thing based on the reason for using the argument.
They said the child was using to "get out of anything and everything", including wearing socks, which implicitly argues it to be a bad thing.
The child is more or less saying that because something is a social construct, that means that they do not have to follow it.
I could see that, thanks.
I still don't understand why there's like a hundred comments saying the same thing slightly differently, looks a bit fake. I don't have the time to go through all of those, but it reminds me of account sellers trying to get some legitimate-looking history. Shame if that's the case
with this heat wave, wearing any clothes is also a social construct.
More like: not wearing bedouin robes: https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-08-16/the-bedouin-lesson-a-scientific-study-proves-robes-are-the-best-garment-to-wear-in-the-desert-heat.html
In desert heat. Humidity is a thing.
Parents feeding their kids is also a social construct. The Ancients tossed their kids in the salt mines quite early.
The children yearn for the mines
You see, in this world there's two kinds of children, my friend: Those with Playstation 5s and those who dig.
I mean, if you have daughters send em to the work the corner. Probably a much better ROI if you can overlook being your daugher's pimp.
Sadly, the younger the daughter, probably the better ROI both over time and initially. Now I feel gross for recognizing that evil exists in this world as more than just a concept, some people embody it.
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.
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:
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
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.
Very, good. That’s correct. However social constructs have consequences for non-adherence. As much as I agree with and wold like to support your stance, this is not something for which I’m willing to invest my energy or time to resolve.
Your compliance and the requirement from me, the adult, to you the child; yep, this sucks. When I’m no longer charged with your care and have completed my duty to prepare you to operate with the constructs of society, you may make this decision for yourself.
Until that time, you can put your socks on, or I will. Your choice. Love you.
In the other vein of this, I hate sock and shoes, so I’m pretty much good with skipping all of this. There are consequences that come with that decision too.
A society is a social construct and there is a social contract to live in one.
You know, we’re living in a society! We’re supposed to act in a civilized way!
I use that line all the time lol
Many things are social constructs, but we also live in social groups
Yup, if you can manage to live off the grid and not have to worry about social constructs again, go for it, though I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
You would still be carrying the social constructs you have internalized throughout your life. You probably have the ability to think logically, and refer to things by their names, but logical thinking and language are also social constructs.
Yeah, but nobody minds social constructs they like.
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 think the point is the fact it's a social construct on its own is neither pro or against the thing itself, rather that it can/should be able to be questioned.
Yes wearing socks is a social construct, but it provides inherent benefits such as reducing the smell produced by your feet and lingering in the shoes. It also helps protect your feet further in some ways then just a shoe alone would.
Yeah often "x is a social construct" as an argument means "you're treating it as if its immutable and a given"
Sure, things should be questioned, but 9 out of 10 times where I have seen someone bring up social construct as an argument it has always been negative, always used to dismiss the so-called social construct. I can't really recall a single time where it has been used by people who weren't going through a rebellious phase where it's all about being a contrarian and rarely about being genuinely curious about the validity of this and that social construct. Sometimes I have also seen things that are objectively not social constructs being labeled social constructs so I have a hard time taking it seriously when it's brought up.
Yeah I don't disagree that a lot of the time, especially when used by kids or edge lords it's moreso just a way to try to end conversation, but I do think it's worth having that discussion when it comes up if they're in good faith.
Like here the op should absolutely explain why it is a social construct instead of what it appears they're implying they do which is just... Either give up or probably force the kid to do it anyway without explaining.
I was one of those kids who always asked why and most adults just wanted me to shut the fuck up. 🤷♂️ I definitely also was an edge lord in my teens and grew out of that for the most part, but throughout I didn't lose my curiosity.
I think a lot of kids have that curiosity beaten out of them unfortunately and we should try to encourage it more. Idk tho I swore off having kids
Definitely. I also think that this specific sock case is pretty innocent and a good excuse to have a stimulating discussion with the kiddo about it. I also don't get why the parent appeared to have just given up, because I do think that one of the most fun conversations I have ever had have been when I talked with kids about how the world works and they ask me questions where I have to think before answering.
And I am completely agreeing with you that it is worth talking about if people are in good faith. It was just never something I came across in the wild a few years back. It was, as you said, always used as a way to end a discussion and actually to get people to not question anything. It's a social construct, ergo it is bad and questioning why it's supposedly bad makes you a bigot. So I just have a very ingrown adverse reaction to that term whenever I see it.
Sucks that your inquisitive nature was dampened, but honestly, I think it's one of the great things we can do for ourselves in adulthood - keep asking questions and find the answers ourselves. I went through a weird knowledge-gathering phase for a few years while working on a worldbuilding project. Got into things I would have never thought about otherwise. Just constant questions about how this and that works, what is this, what is that? Why are things like this? Who does this and that in society? How are continents formed? Where does coffee grow any why? Do dreadlocks remain dreadlocks as they grow? (They do) How were languages formed? How were alphabets formed? How are parasites beneficial to the ecosystem? Can you surgically change a person's eye color? (You can) How did the Ottoman Empire fall and why? Would gooseberry lollipops be popular with kids? How long does it take to bake bread in a volcano? How old is the oldest tree in the world? (That's how I learned about Prometheus and the infuriating end to a 5000+ year long lifespan because one stupid university graduate decided that cutting it down for science was more important than letting it live).
Yadda yadda yadda. Honestly, it becomes kind of addictive once you get going with these types of questions. It's a lot of fun. I hope you still ask questions, my friend! Don't let that part of you die 🤗
Right on!
Luckily I ignored everyone telling me to stop and once I got the internet... Yeah similar to your paragraph lol the rabbit hole of how and why is deep!
So glad to hear it! And yes, oh God, how deep that rabbit hole goes! What are some crazy/interesting places you have ended up?
I've never really had many techy friends/family members so that's where a large amount of my own research/rabbit holes usually go lol.
Like a few months ago I did a whole home server/homelab setup with proxmox several LXCs etc just from a desire to learn. I found Linux way back at age 12 but didn't really dig too far beyond being able to sit in the corner of our empty house so I could reach my neighbors shared wifi and watch anime/Yt (laptop literally did not function on windows XP when it was gifted to my dad for comparison lol)
Powerautomate for work has been a great time sink and a ton to learn there still and I'm learning how to do sysadmin and web coding things as well.
For like rando interesting facts, it's hard because without a trigger I can't usually just come up with a fact even though I might have gone down a 20+tab Wikipedia rabbit hole in a subject haha
Nick sounds like a dipshit if he can't figure out how to argue against socks being a social construct.
Alright kid, do you know what isn't a social construct? Foot fungus. You know what prevents foot fungus, and fungus that literally eats your skin and enlarges your toenails 3 times their normal height from the bed of your nail and is incredibly hard to treat and cure? The social construct of dry socks.
At this point you Google pictures of athlete's feet, toenail fungus, and open the yeast you bought yesterday and make them smell it.
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
true
Social constructs aren't practical.
Not hitting dumdums on the head with a hammer whenever they say something silly is a social construct.
Hitting dumdums on the head with a hammer when they do could also be a social construct.
The usefulness of either method might be disputed by some but that there is practical social and individual value in not being murdered for a bad take should be obvious.
The criticism of "that's just a social construct" is not that it is one and is therefore meaningless, but that being a construct means it could be flawed.
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.
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.
That's because you had a bad take that illogically separates the biological demands of organisms and their communities from aspects of social organization
There is no separation, social behaviors are also adaptations to the environment.
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".
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?
Some social constructs exist for a good reason. Part of growing is learning to tell which are good and which are bad.
Socks have a practical use, they wick sweat away from your feet - this is practical in low temps where you will wear a cotton sock with a wool sock on top of it
In cold temps I just wear a wool sock. Cotton is cold.
The cotton will dry as the wool absorbs the sweat from it
Could save you a toe
I've always been warm with my socks. Thank you
"Attitudes against smacking children are also a social construct..."
The proper retort would be, "so?"
"I'll socially construct the back of my hand upside your head you little shit."
lol this is amazing
And this is why right-wingers want teaching this shit banned in schools.
As someone that grew up hating socks (parents only bought the ones with a thick seam at the toe), yes, the requirement to wear socks is a social construct. There are other ways to avoid smelly feet.
Currently, I wear shoes with washable insoles and I have multiple sets of these insoles. I also rotate between shoes, and these shoes can also go in the wash.
I do wear (nice, seamless) socks when I go hiking, but for day-to-day at the office they're unnecessary.
I was going to reply with "wait until their feet are in pain after a day without socks", but then your post happened. Looks like not everyone is built the same.
huh, i did not know there are more reasons for wearing socks than your feet being cold.
after a certain temperature i physically cannot wear socks as my feet get too hot. i either get to put on sandals, or i'll take those full shoes and socks off in the middle of whatever bullshit forces them on me
If my socks have seams at the toes, I wear them inside out. I believe I learned that from Sean Connery in Finding Forrester.
You're the man now, dawg!
If the sock seams bother you ,you either wear your socks or shoes, or both too tight
Or I'm autistic and things that don't bother most people do bother me. I almost always size up and go baggy.
I do that with my knit compression gloves. It's an awesome trick!
"You'll stop smelling after the first month of using my all natural body wash" vibes
I get that it's a joke, but wearing socks is not a social construct-- it's a social convention, but its 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.
Wrong, wearing socks is required to not get blisters. And shoes keep featsies safe.
This comment was written by Big Socks
Funny, but wear your god damn socks when wearing hiking footwear etc. Even in the summer. You will suffer horribly, otherwise
We should call lemmy “reddit’s bottom of the barrel”.
Society is a social construct.
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.
The botanical definition is just "edible parts of a plant". The culinary definition however does differs per culture.
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
I have no problem believing that every society has ludicrous cultural vestiges that can undoubtedly be traced back to a religious practice. For example, some Pope might declare that fish isn't meat based on an example of linguistic sophistry to protect the fishing industry.
Fish is not meat, but it's also not vegetarian
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.
Dad: Boning your mom is a social construct.
Mom: The fuck you just say about me?
Dad: Uh...
"Sure, but your feet would still get cold."
My feet are uncomfortable without socks. Yes, even when it's hot.
Clothes as a concept started with utilitarian purposes like staying warm or cool. There are a lot of social constructs around clothes including when and what is worn in what contexts, but not the reason they exist in the first place.
Serious question:
I moved to an area that should be 5 degrees cooler on average than home, but this summer is killing me and I have a lot of stuff outside to work on, plus I recently got back on my meds, which all have heat sensitivity advisories so, yeah... probably not helping, but bipolar meds are generally fairly necessarily, unfortunately.
So, the question: Where could I purchase a legit Bedouin robe for the cooling effects; preferably online as I don't think they have too many robe shops in central AR?
I'm not afraid to look like a weirdo in my own back yard.
Hell the neighbors on one side a retired potheads with strong hippy vibes, the other side is a young family of musicians.... the dude rocks a waxed handle bar mustache regularly so I really don't care for his opinions on style. To each their own.
Thawb or dishdasha is the thing you're looking for, and easily available online. My friend brings me back some from Kuwait: the current batch is from https://aljazzerakw.com/ Truly the world's comfiest clothing
Just tell them: Socks to sock..
Some additional social constructs they may be more sentimental about: gifts, allowance, summer vacation, breakfast, lunch, dinner, doors, privacy, the internet.
Tell that to the soldiers in the US Civil War that got gangrene.
Your mum is a social construct.
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
With clothing specifically, it generally has a purpose. Socks can make you more comfortable, warm up your feet, pull sweat away from your skin and generally reduce odors... Not all of those in all cases, mind you, but depending on the circumstances and the type of sock, any/all of these could be the case.
Undergarments in general have similar stories.
All undergarments also play a role in keeping your over garments cleaner. Changing out your underpants and throwing on yesterday's jeans can get you through a day with nearly no compromises... Depending on how dirty your jeans get on an average day.
Over clothes protect you from getting dirty to a limited extent, they'll block/absorb spills that reduces the amount you have to wash/bathe/shower... It's easier to just throw on a new shirt than get into the shower and clean yourself up. Same with pants and other over garments.
Outerwear usually provides a protective element, eg jackets can help prevent things like thorns from scratching you, or keep you warm in cold weather, or dry in wet weather...
Clothes, to me, are a useful thing to be wearing, each piece serving it's own small function, all of it coming together to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
There's plenty of social constructs, this is true, but clothing definitely has a practical purpose, along with so many other things.
"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."
😊 🫴🏀
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
Then don't look.
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
I'd be cool with that.
You should see a doctor about that.
Aren't hands much more nasty?
Only if you don't wash them and don't clip your nails, or if you paint your nails that's also nasty
Tell that kid that yes, everything is a social construct. But without social constructs he'd be dead. Wearing socks might be all that's keeping him alive.
Health care is a social construct too.
A sandwich is a social construct. But a social construct isn't always a sandwich.
If people don't like social constructs, go build a shack in wilderness and don't ever make contact with other human beings again. That isn't to say there are things we do for tradition, or societal norms that constrain us in silly ways but "social construct" is not some get out of jail free excuse.
"Not accepting every social construct isn't the same as rejecting every social construct."
Also saying to go live in the wilderness alone to a child doesn't sound like the greatest idea
Guess we're all social constructs (tf that mean)
Love is a social construct, guess you aren't getting that either you little shit.