For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
One of the great mysteries of the day.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
Talking about butchering the language, how's this? They is an American actor (why are so many American actors 'theys' (since it became fashionable)?). They is a wanker.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:55 amOne of the great mysteries of the day.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
Alas, you won't get an answer from the idiots who believe that nonsense.
It's only mysterious if you mistakenly believe that social constructs can always be ignored or dispensed with unilaterally without deleterious and painful consequences. Why would anyone believe that, though?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:55 amOne of the great mysteries of the day.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
I ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results. There is something psychologically wrong with allowing one's beliefs and values to be determined by what is popular among the ignorant masses.mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:00 pmIt's only mysterious if you mistakenly believe that social constructs can always be ignored or dispensed with unilaterally without deleterious and painful consequences. Why would anyone believe that, though?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:55 amOne of the great mysteries of the day.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:01 am Gender ... If it's a 'social construct' then how can anyone be the 'wrong gender'??
You're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmI ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results.
Yes, it's called conservatism.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmThere is something psychologically wrong with allowing one's beliefs and values to be determined by what is popular among the ignorant masses.
Well, it's worth understanding what makes other people tick. It helps if you need to get out of the way when they do something crazy.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmOnly someone who refuses, or is unable, to think for themselves, gives a damn what, "society," or others think, believe, and do.
What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmIts much easier just accept whatever one is taught and what everyone else believes and does than to do the hard work of using one's own mind to learn, think, and understand what is actually true, which is why so many fall for the, "social construct," lie.
That's a lot of mistakes for two sentences. To call language a, "social construct," is a bit disingenuous. You know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct." If you are going to call just anything human beings have invented a, "social construct," then you'll have to include mathematics, logic, science, history, etc. The term becomes meaningless. I think you are also confused about the purpose of language. The primary purpose of language is to hold knowledge in the form of concepts. Communication is not the primary purpose of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pmYou're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmI ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results.
No, it is called superstition. Conservatism is just one among many such superstitions along with all other, "-isms," religions, and ideologies.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pmYes, it's called conservatism.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmThere is something psychologically wrong with allowing one's beliefs and values to be determined by what is popular among the ignorant masses.
Sure.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pmWell, it's worth understanding what makes other people tick. It helps if you need to get out of the way when they do something crazy.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmOnly someone who refuses, or is unable, to think for themselves, gives a damn what, "society," or others think, believe, and do.
What difference does it make what some people, like, "conservatives," think? There is no shortage of idiots in this world.* Are they something special to you? Are they worse, in your view, than Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example? (You certainly do not have to answer that question. I'm not interested in your personal views, just curious about the emphasis.)uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pmWhat we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmIts much easier to just accept whatever one is taught and what everyone else believes and does than to do the hard work of using one's own mind to learn, think, and understand what is actually true, which is why so many fall for the, "social construct," lie.
* The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpable not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. -- H.L. Mencken
Well no; for current purposes, I have to understand what you mean by "the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."". The whole point of post-modern philosophy, as I understand it, is an acknowledgement that no interpretation of data has a privileged claim to truth. Some are better, some are worse, but there are never less than two alternative explanations.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmThat's a lot of mistakes for two sentences. To call language a, "social construct," is a bit disingenuous. You know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pmYou're using one now. Language is a social construct; if we didn't agree broadly on how to use it, communication would be very limited.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmI ignore all so-called, "social constructs," with nothing but benevolent results.
Yes.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmIf you are going to call just anything human beings have invented a, "social construct," then you'll have to include mathematics, logic, science, history, etc. The term becomes meaningless.
I don't think that is why our ancestors began communicating. You could make a case for writing, but language comes a lot sooner.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmI think you are also confused about the purpose of language. The primary purpose of language is to hold knowledge in the form of concepts.
Are joy, love, lust, hunger, fear, anger conceptual? If we are anything like animals, and I suggest we are, those will be the primary purpose of language.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmCommunication is not the primary purpose of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.
Well, since you didn't ask for my opinion, I'll tell you anyway: Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example are all perfectly capable of being conservative, Marxists too, for that matter. One facet of conservatism, with a small c, is defence of any doctrine as it becomes increasingly indefensible.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:20 pmWhat difference does it make what some people, like, "conservatives," think? There is no shortage of idiots in this world.* Are they something special to you? Are they worse, in your view, than Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example? (You certainly do not have to answer that question. I'm not interested in your personal views, just curious about the emphasis.)
Indeed.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmThe costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpable not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. -- H.L. Mencken
I can't speak for uwot, but I certainly know no such thing: "To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently." https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/p ... uction.pdfRCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmYou know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
Exactly. And that's exactly what these imbeciles are perpetuating. THEY are the ones reinforcing stereotypes. When women decide that they 'are' a man, what do they do to turn this into reality? They take hormones and adopt mannerisms that make themselves 'appear more masculine'. Now why would they bother to do that, when there's no such thing as 'masculine' or 'feminine'? God, this is giving me a headache.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
But as there's no such thing as a man then it's a moot point...aaagh!! ); just don't expect me to recognise you as a woman. Do your thing by all means, but keep children out of it, and don't demand that the rest of society pander to you.Since I regard every explanation of what is supposed to be a, "social construct," so much nonsense, like everything else spawned in critical theory and PM, use whatever definition you like.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pmWell no; for current purposes, I have to understand what you mean by "the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."". The whole point of post-modern philosophy, as I understand it, is an acknowledgement that no interpretation of data has a privileged claim to truth. Some are better, some are worse, but there are never less than two alternative explanations.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmThat's a lot of mistakes for two sentences. To call language a, "social construct," is a bit disingenuous. You know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
'Yes," what? "Social construct is a meaningless phrase," or, "every human invention is a, social construct," or, "both?" Just not sure which your, "yes," pertained to.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pmYes.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmIf you are going to call just anything human beings have invented a, "social construct," then you'll have to include mathematics, logic, science, history, etc. The term becomes meaningless.
Just how did our "early ancestors," (as if anyone actually knows anything about what they did beyond wild conjecture) manage to, "communicate," without any consciousness of what they wanted to communicate or choosing some method of doing so? Even if they only used grunts and growls, if the grunt meant nothing to the grunter, how did it mean anything to the hearer?uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pmI don't think that is why our ancestors began communicating. You could make a case for writing, but language comes a lot sooner.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmI think you are also confused about the purpose of language. The primary purpose of language is to hold knowledge in the form of concepts.
The experiences are emotions. To talk about them we have concepts that identify them, but joy, love, lust, hunger, fear, and anger are certainly hot concepts themselves, any more than coffee (the actual drink) is not a concept, but we identify it with the concept, "coffee," just as we identify the feelings with concepts represented by the same words.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pmAre joy, love, lust, hunger, fear, anger conceptual?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmCommunication is not the primary purpose of language. One must know something before they can communicate it.
Human beings are only like animals biologically. Psychologically they are totally unique. Human beings must consciously choose their behavior, animals cannot, which is why they have instinct to determine their behavior. We are talking about language (supposedly a social construct), not expressions of feelings. Language is the unique human method of holding and using knowledge to think (intellect and reason) and also communicating what they know and think (a secondary function of language.) I can, like my animals, express feelings and emotions without language, as my wife can attest, but neither my animals, nor I can tell you what they are or anything about them without language. (And neither could any so-called ancient ancestors.)
That is an interesting way of identifying conservatism. It's not what I think is usually meant, but confess I do not have enough interest in politics to analyze the endless shades of political idologies out there.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:36 pm Well, since you didn't ask for my opinion, I'll tell you anyway: Muslims, anarchists, or Catholics, for example are all perfectly capable of being conservative, Marxists too, for that matter. One facet of conservatism, with a small c, is defence of any doctrine as it becomes increasingly indefensible.
As I wrote to uwot:mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:28 pmI can't speak for uwot, but I certainly know no such thing: "To say of something that it is socially constructed is to emphasize its dependence on contingent aspects of our social selves. It is to say: This thing could not have existed had we not built it; and we need not have built it at all, at least not in its present form. Had we been a different kind of society, had we had different needs, values, or interests, we might well have built a different kind of thing, or built this one differently." https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/p ... uction.pdfRCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:36 pmYou know that is not what is meant by the post-modernist concept of, "social construct."
Where do you get your definition of "social construct: posr-modernist version" from? Would you be willing to share it with us?
It's a made-up concept constructed of nonsense like, "contingent aspects of our social selves," invented by idiots. Your view of society is correct for at least 90% of humanity who, no doubt, are unable, or refuse, to think for themselves, and whose every idea is learned from others and every act is copied from those around them.Since I regard every explanation of what is supposed to be a, "social construct," so much nonsense, like everything else spawned in critical theory and PM, use whatever definition you like.
So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots.
"Social constructs," only pertain to idiots who do not use their own minds, to learn, think, and work to make something of their own lives. The coasters and second-handers who have to belong to some gang to find any value in life or themselves--parasites.The average man never really thinks from end to end of his life. The mental activity of such people is only a mouthing of cliches. What they mistake for thought is simply a repetition of what they have heard. My guess is that well over 80 percent of the human race goes through life without having a single original thought.
What I'm talking about here is mentally disturbed children being made responsible for their own care; as a consequence of a legal action that alleged the NHS acted irresponsibly in handing out puberty blockers to children on the basis of two or three - hour long consultations. This is from a doctor at GIDS explaining his decision to quit.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
You have to wonder why so-called 'blackface' is treated with much outraged wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of it, yet drag queens are an offensive and often misogynistic caricature of women (even though there is apparently no such thing as women) and they are beloved by wokedom all over the world. A bit of consistency...dears....Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:50 pmWhat I'm talking about here is mentally disturbed children being made responsible for their own care; as a consequence of a legal action that alleged the NHS acted irresponsibly in handing out puberty blockers to children on the basis of two or three - hour long consultations. This is from a doctor at GIDS explaining his decision to quit.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:39 pm What we're talking about here is the social expectations of how people with testes should behave in contrast to those with ovaries. Oblivious to irony, it is generally the conservatives that bleat loudest about freedom and choice, who are most upset when individuals don't behave according to conservative social constructs. The idea that people should just be whatever they wish to be is antithetical to their conservative views.
Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just 'Affirmation' and Drugs
Dr Marcus Evans
17 Jan 2020
https://quillette.com/2020/01/17/why-i- ... and-drugs/
The problem is compounded by left wing teachers pumping kids full of politically correct post modernist nonsense, taking drag queens into schools, encouraging boys to wear skirts, telling kids there are 99 genders.
Teenage boys wear skirts to school to protest against 'no shorts' policy
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... orm-policy
Mhairi Black defends Paisley primary school after drag queen called Flowjob visits P1 kids
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5 ... rag-queen/
BBC education film that claims there are 'more than 100 gender identities' is blasted as 'nonsense' and accused of 'confusing' primary school children
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sense.html
The problem with political correctness is that no-one can disagree, or else:
Speaker condemns threats to MPs as Rosie Duffield skips Labour conference in trans rights row
‘LGBT+ Labour now seem to hate my guts’ says MP
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 22772.html
I am at an absolute loss to explain the High Courts decision to allow these people to continue, causing permanent damage to children.
I've often thought that drag queens are misogynistic; but when you get blokes in frocks robbing female athletes, it's a blatant fuck you to women.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:09 pm You have to wonder why so-called 'blackface' is treated with much outraged wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of it, yet drag queens are an offensive and often misogynistic caricature of women (even though there is apparently no such thing as women) and they are beloved by wokedom all over the world. A bit of consistency...dears....
A chance to cavort with and 'man'handle women. What more could a 'man' want?Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:27 pmI've often thought that drag queens are misogynistic; but when you get blokes in frocks robbing female athletes, it's a blatant fuck you to women.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 10:09 pm You have to wonder why so-called 'blackface' is treated with much outraged wailing and gnashing of teeth at the mere mention of it, yet drag queens are an offensive and often misogynistic caricature of women (even though there is apparently no such thing as women) and they are beloved by wokedom all over the world. A bit of consistency...dears....
Look at the size of this geezher!