A sandwich is a social construct. But a social construct isn't always a sandwich.
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
1211 points (98.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
8360 readers
2858 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"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."
๐ ๐ซด๐
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.
"Sure, but your feet would still get cold."
Guess we're all social constructs (tf that mean)
Social constructs are real.things, so here you go
Health care is a social construct too.
I get that it's a joke, but wearing socks is not a social construct-- it's a social convention, but it's utility is driven primarily by non-social factors. A social construct is an idea created and maintained by society specifically for its social function, which neither socks nor the act or wearing them nor the idea that wearing socks is good, are.
Vegetables are a social construct too.
Afaik, botanically, there is no such thing as a "vegetable". Only fruits. What we perceive as "vegetable" differs between cultures worldwide.
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
Yeah I had a friend from Grenada that told me this one day and I had trouble understanding the reasoning.
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.
those people are morons
The botanical definition is just "edible parts of a plant". The culinary definition however does differs per culture.
everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???
my issue is that even though "clothing" is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming "clothed" is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn't exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.
It's kinda sad, i guess. I'm usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?
Socks are not a social construct.
Social constructs are Social constructs
Social constructs aren't practical.
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
Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.
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
Not that I advocate violence, but not beating your kids, selling them on the street, or making them work in a factory is also a social contract.
Contract yes, as it pertains to laws, but I would argue construct no- since protecting one's offspring is a natural/biological impulse. It's non negotiable from a survival viewpoint, and some people have better survival instincts than others.
We as creatures behave certain ways because of a result of biology and circumstances. How can you say anything we do isn't a natural/biological impulse. When did we stop being a part of nature? And stop being controlled by biology?
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Let's not bring Elon into this.
Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.
This is a weird conversation.
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn' do it, doesn't mean it's not "natural". I don't know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they'd act like waking up to the sun is THE "natural" thing.
Are you suggesting that if even one human lacks this biological impulse to protect their children, we can't say that humans generally have a biological impulse to protect their children? That's absurd. And isn't this point entirely moot with regards to people who do have that in-built instinct?
I let my kid go all flower child about the socks. he got athletes foot. Socks SPECIFICALLY are not a social construct. they prevent athletes foot.
Hygiene IS a social construct, but that doesn't mean it isn't there for a good reason.
That's only if you include pointless hygiene like shaving legs and armpits. You'll legit get skin issues, infections, and possibly attract pests if you don't wash your ass.
Exactly. Not all social constructs are bad.
Hygiene is not a construct regardless. I swear people just go on the internet and say things.
hygiene, engaging in a practice until hygienic, is a construct. the act of scrubbing your skin might not be
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.
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.
view more: next โบ