Some additional social constructs they may be more sentimental about: gifts, allowance, summer vacation, breakfast, lunch, dinner, doors, privacy, the internet.
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.
“Sure, but your feet would still get cold.”
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
theyd be less likely to be incels if they were washable
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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:
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
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.
“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.”
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.
