>its a social construct, therefore it doesn't exist
how do we stop this meme?
It would be harder than the "It's just a theory" meme. Just accept to live with it
Things exist as social constructs.
Things do not lose relevance with the status of being constructs.
>>332856
>it doesn't exist
No, it just isn't natural. That's the point.
>>332963
>muh natural
who gives a shit. Lightbulbs and TVs arent "natural" either. These freaks can blow it out their ass.
>>332990
What are you trying to say here, mate?
>>332990
>Lightbulbs and TVs arent "natural" either
They don't make you happy either
>>332963
you can make the argument anything is a social construct or even natural
fuck off my man
>>333026
He means that it'svalues shift, it isn't concrete and it's up to social and individual interpretation.
People think because you draw a line in one place instead of another, that no line exists--or oftentimes we assume it. The tricky thing with race is figuring out where to draw the lines, for both political and practical reasons. Genetic similarity or dissimilarity overall, tends to be best predicted by the region someone resides, and that tends to be true everywhere.
>>332856
The concept of there being social constructs is in fact itself a social construct
>>333102
But that literally means nothing, which is op's point
>social structure
Leftism at it's finest. I fucking hate leftists.
>>332895
>tfw my ninth grade biology teacher didn't believe in evolution
Complete babbies here.
>>333118
Which is why the leftist EP Thompson destroyed Althusser, who posited social structure, in Thompson's famous debate with Althusser's proxy Anderson.
Fuck off and read.
It must exist, else you wouldn't be talking about it. There only is; there is not is-not.
being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means its existence can change with the will of the people
>>333252
>with the will of the people
Social constructs usually aren't the result of "will." The intentionality is so obscured by the multiple contests over the construction of things.
>>333111
Thats what I was implying
>>333025
>he says while posting from a computer/phone
>>333252
>>333265
[S]ocial construction talk is often applied not only to worldly items – things, kinds and facts – but to our beliefs about them. Consider Helene Moussa’s The Social Construction of Women Refugees (1992). Clearly, the intent is not to insist on the obvious fact that certain women come to be refugees as a consequence of social events. Rather, the idea is to expose the way in which a particular belief has been shaped by social forces: the belief that there is a particular kind of person – the woman refugee – deserving of being singled out for special attention. Talk of the social construction of belief, however, requires some elaboration of the core idea. For it is simply trivially true of any belief that we have that it is not necessary that we should have had it and that we might not have had it had we been different from the way we actually are. Consider our belief that dinosaurs once roamed the earth. It is obviously not inevitable that we should have come to this belief. We might never have considered the question. Having considered it, we might have arrived at a different conclusion, for a variety of causes: we might not have been interested in the truth; we might not have been as intelligent at figuring it out; we might never have stumbled across the relevant evidence (the fossil record).
[...]
It is crucial, therefore, to distinguish between a constructionist claim that’s directed at things and facts, on the one hand, and one that’s directed at beliefs on the other, for they are distinct sorts of claim and require distinct forms of vindication. The first amounts to the metaphysical claim that something is real but of our own creation; the second to the epistemic claim that the correct explanation for why we have some particular belief has to do with the role that that belief plays in our social lives, and not exclusively with the evidence adduced in its favor.
>mfw I hear race is a social construct
>>333127
>My twelfth grade Micro-bio teacher didn't believe in evolution.
Literally no idea how he managed to become an excellent teach on the subject believing that, but he pulled it off.
>>334874
"Race is a social construct" is true in the metaphysical sense, i.e. the concept is of our own creation. But the concept of race is consistent with reality to a degree such that "race is a social construct" is false in the epistemic sense; the qualities by which we distinguish the races still exist even without an observer.
For the sophist, there is an incentive to obscure the distinction between the epistemic and the metaphysical "social construct" proposition, though often the people who make such a claim about race are unaware of the distinction themselves.
>>335004
Distinction without difference.
>>332856
It's the liberal condition of being materialist, cynical and seeking emancipation from all spirits, norms and eventually your humanity. Everyone who does not subscribe to this path is possessed by some malicious external ideology and propaganda with religion being the classic example. Thus "it's a social construct" becomes some kind of argument.
>>332856
>its a social construct, therefore it doesn't exist
That's really not the point. The point is that if even if something is a social construct, you cannot change it, even if extremely many people believe so.
Take gayness for example. Some people think it's genetic, and some people think it's simply socially constructed.
Regardless of which of those is true(I tend to think it's a mixture of both), a man who is a raging homosexual will never become a heterosexual if you just push him hard enough.
Some things might be socially constructed, but it really doesn't matter if they are.
>>334347
>criticizing white people
>using their inventions
>>333102
Yes, and?
Did you know the concept of there being concepts is itself a concept?
>>332856
Never
The plebs got ahold of it and are now misusing terms without understanding anything
A similar thing happened with theory
You just have to deal with it
Plebs gonna pleb
>>334874
>>335004
Race is a social construct, in the sense that there are very few things within the biological makeup of a certain racial category that can be proven to induce certain behaviors.
In other words, the reason Jamal shoots the Crips if he is a member of the Bloods, isn't because he's black. It's clearly because he was raised in a shitty environment that made it impossible for him to succeed in the world apart from becoming a gangster and gaining respect that way.
>>336549
At the moment yes
But human genome research is still hot hot hot and is going to be one of the biggest industries in the next 100 years
Who knows what we'll discover desu :3
>>336593
Sure but it's not like human genome research could demonstratively prove why X gene causes Y effects.
It could prove generalized things, such as "this gene in patient X makes him more prone to anger, than patient Y" but that's not really saying much is it?
>>332963
Most of these social constructs have existed from before we were aware, and draw very much upon the bestial aspects of ourselves. They're far more natural than the stuff being used to replace them.
>All of these straw mans
Something being a social structure doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means it DOES exist, but is a byproduct of society rather than existing in a natural way.
Law is a social construct. Does that mean it doesn't exist? No. It just means that it's dependent on societal and cultural norms and can exist differently depending on time and place. Law in ancient Greece is different from law in the Soviet Union, for example, but in both instances they're both equally valid.
Literally anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of sociology can tell you that social constructs ARE reality.
>>336549
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/rushton/rushton-last-article.pdf
quite odd the wratislav doesn't go about shooting ivan when they live in just as bad enviroment and with just as shitty prospects
>>336684
>quite odd the wratislav doesn't go about shooting ivan when they live in just as bad enviroment and with just as shitty prospects
Well Wratislav doesn't shoot Ivan, but Slavs in general don't really eschew violence.
Have you even been to Eastern Europe or Russia? I'm guessing no.
As for the source you provided, that may all be true, but the interesting corollary would then be why most black or swarthy people are non-violent then.
The percentage might be higher among them, which can be accounted for through some psych-bullshit, but the point I'm trying to make is good luck trying to demonstrate any genetic component to that, because it's almost certainly going to be a correlation does not equal causation fallacy.
>>336751
Not him but
>have you been to Eastern Europe
Have you? I'm originally from there and it's not more violent than western societies. Statistics support me on that too.
>>336778
Every time I go there for a vacation with friends, granted it's anecdotal evidence, there's always some retarded Adidas-wearing retarded who wants to pick a fight.
>>336798
Which country? Also yes that is indeed anecdotal horseshit.
>>336803
>Which country?
Czech Republic, also happened in Poland. Especially Poland.
I don't think Poles like foreigners.
>>336814
>Czech republic
>Adidas tracksuits and violent people
Well memed.
>>336603
says the humanities major
the world of the genome is about to be opened to us which will tell us everything we want to know about each other
>>336833
>humanities major
>implying I'd ever go to college
>>336833
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
>>332963
>not natural
Except many of these social constructs have a biological, natural, basis. Humans aren't ethereal beings removed from the world.
>>336549
>Race is a social construct, in the sense that there are very few things within the biological makeup of a certain racial category that can be proven to induce certain behaviors.
"Behaviors" are attributes that occur within racial categories, so I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Do you mean something along the lines of "there are no specific alleles that cause specific behaviors"? Please elaborate.
>>336863
>"Behaviors" are attributes that occur within racial categories
Really? Like what?
>>332990
Things not being natural justifies scrutinizing and tinkering with them. Lightbulbs and TVs have been continuously improved since their advent, and many unnatural things have been scrapped altogether when preferable alternatives became available.
The idea is that the thing being called a social construct should be subject to the same scrutiny, improvement, and occasional discarding that all human inventions are subject to. And sometimes to recognize that people making arguments from nature have a stake in exempting something from scrutiny.
>>336814
Making shit up: the post
>>336887
What do you mean, like what? Sub-saharan Africans exhibit kindness. Eskimos exhibit kindness. Two examples of behaviours occurring within racial categories.
>>336907
Yes, but I am talking about clear cut genetic empiricism.
I.e this gene *causes* this behavior.
I doubt there will ever be a time when this will happen.
>>336931
>I.e this gene *causes* this behavior.
This is an essentialist conception of race that no proponent of modern theories of race-as-biological-construct accepts.
>>336938
>This is an essentialist conception of race that no proponent of modern theories of race-as-biological-construct accepts.
I'm pretty sure 95% of /pol/ accepts my thesis.
>>336931
According to Reddit that's how gays work.
