Countries are social constructs

Based and cosmopolitanpilled

based, man is a political animal and thus political communities are natural

this

>A country is a stretch of geography
that's not what a country is, and even if it were, the borders of that stratch of geography are socially constructed

the imaginary lines are tho

They are but people who say this often act like it's some sort of big revelation and they also assume that social construct are inherently false, bad or useless.
Language is a "social constructs", you can just gargle something and expect people to understand you.
Money is a "social construct" you can just take any stuff you want like it's a normal thing. Even thieves know that money is valuable.

lurk moar

so many dump people in this thread

Well nature didn't draw the borders of each nation, we did

It kind of is a big revelation to a lot people. Just look at OP here, an essentialist of the worst type.

Why are social constructs bad? I see SJWs write gender/sex is social construct bla bla bla

A social construct is not necessarily bad, but the fact that something is a social construct means it can be subject to change if need be. Don't think anyone really claims sex is a social construct, but the social construct of gender can be harmful to people who don't identify with whichever genders and gender roles the society they live in has constructed.

This. Any social construct, emphasys on the construct is not a law of nature, but a convention. Like the Maxwell-equations are discoveries, they are just accepted as how things work. On the other hand the voltage, the frequency of AC networks are conventions, they are human constructs that can be changed and re-written to accommodate the needs of the people.
Morality is a social construct, people can see that violence is harmful for a civilization and hinders progress, so they make laws banning murder. But then there are murderers in said society, so the law should be modified so the courts can sentence someone to death and it's not unlawful murder to perform that action, it is sanctioned. Or they meet some gypsies and niggers, who are humans, but belligerent and worthless and they should be exterminated. So that the law of nature that every human being is a human being, but the social construct of "human rights" can be applied more flexibly to exlude niggers and gypsies, who should be allowed to live.

Not so fast. As long as we have a legacy of the monarchy, the country is a metaphysical construct given to us by God.

All things are subject to change and impermanence. All things are relationally derived on webs of heuristic convention rather than ultimately real things or concepts.

Arguments over sex and gender or whatever are not arguments concerning the objective nature of things (which cannot really be done since objectivity is not tenable) but instead are arguments regarding how useful our heuristics are. Appeals to objectivity are just one heuristic argument - pointing out that all things are subject to change is a more logically accurate argument but the usefulness of changing what youre trying to change is not guaranteed by the fact it can change. There is nothing inherent in the letter y that neccesitates its inclusion in the word rhythm besides malleable social convention - however it would not be very useful to change this convention.

hmm?

Attached: 13D4396D-29B8-432A-A851-0AA0A457FB1A.png (355x346, 34K)

Name one thing that isn't a social construct
protip: you can't

my deep feelings for you

What's the geographic feature of the US-Canada border between the Pacific Coast and the Great Lakes? Or the Canada-Alaska border? Or the Prairie borders?

emotions are a social construct

Your unbounded faggotry

Everything that would continue to exist even if humans disappeared tomorrow.

gender is a social construct

>Social constructs are valid

Attached: 42080536_574159626334257_2594846534518325955_n.jpg (690x600, 73K)

Social constructs presume that there really are people which make up societies to form consensuses

However other people all just arise in my perception and thoughts.

Perceptions are all separate things as are thoughts. Theyre constantly coming in and out of existence. They always carry this idea of a self but when directed to search for a self there is none.

birds

why is a bat not a bird? or a fly?

Well, i'm wondering if colonies of bacterias might be considered as "countries".

Are human beings as collections of cells countries?

why would they be

Human perception gives us reality in absolute terms. When actually things are a lot more murky.

why is a nigger not a human?

Well I think that similar beings regroup by other means than only what we define as social construct. Look the newborn human beings, they will recignise the ones from the tribes, and the others. That's the real problem of scientifical politics, people always tend to bend the narrative towards them, polarizing it, and not seing that there are shades of realm. Groups of highly evolved beings could be actually the result of both : social construct and deterministic realm, acting in a synergia.

It is obvious to everyone that coutries have always been as they are currently, that they precede humans and will survive them, and that they are not affected in their constitution by historical events

This is one of the most nonsensical posts ive ever read.

Ad rem, albion, or just go away.

>There is nothing inherent in the letter y that neccesitates its inclusion in the word rhythm besides malleable social convention - however it would not be very useful to change this convention.
Indeed. Hence why there is no one arguing for abolishing or changing the letter y in the word rythm. Seeking to change gender and gender norms is a result of close examination of the construct and the fact that it has oppressive elements.

I think you're trolling, but the points you raise are due to their falsehood good examples of why countries are indeed social constructs so I'm replying to your comment so some birdbrain reading this might actually learn something

>It is obvious to everyone that coutries have always been as they are currently
>and that they are not affected in their constitution by historical events
Countries as we know them today; their current borders, the way they are governed and how they interact with eachother are a result of several historic treaties like most notably the treaty of Westphalia .
>that they precede humans and will survive them
absolutely not the case. Every retard can see why. Borders are not set in stone and by definition only limit human actions. Without people there is no reason to have borders.

it was just a reductio ad absurdum, friend

yea i got that

If you look on a map you will see that most of the countries and regions borders follow topological features of the terrain. Pyreenes for france-spain, alps for Italia -France, the rhine for France/belgium -germany, Elb river for Poland-Germany etc.

>Seeking to change gender and gender norms is a result of close examination of the construct and the fact that it has oppressive elements.
Yes so the argument is about the conventional usefulness of the convention

Some say its current configuration is oppressive
Some say it is some how necessary for society to function
Ultimately every argument, the topic, the method of arguing, the appeals, are all empty.

there's mor eto countries than borders

God.

No there isnt. Countries are relationally derived by people and land belonging either to or not to them

Poland is as much poland as it is everything that isnt not poland

are you pretending to be retarded? That's just the territorial aspect

The concept of God is the best example for social construction, every human groups have their own version of the Demiurge
You're basically saying that Universe isn't a social construct, which is a tautology

what other aspects are there

Way to miss the point. the other dude said that borders are not a natural product of the cosmos, not that borders can't be a naturally ocurring barrier. See "borders (...) by definition only limit human actions". Indeed, a border will stop people but not the rain.

No there is also the human aspect. Which is being a polish citizen or not being a pole.

Poland is some fences and passport booklets.

countries at war don't have concrete defined borders
there's also the governance, administration aspect and how the country and its representative are the ultimate authority there
any country would cease to be a country if it had just borders without any organisation within them

Materially poland is some fences and booklets

More abstractly poland is a thing most people assent to as existing.

Materially Poland isn't even some fences since we have no borders with the EU

Society.

>there's also the governance, administration aspect and how the country and its representative are the ultimate authority there
All of which are social constructs.
>"Why can't I kill this person?"
>"because it says so on this paper"
That is not to say there is no rationale behind laws, there are clear benefits to people not being able to murder, but ultimately the law is only enforced because enough people consent to accepting the social construct. There is nothing stopping you from murdering a person on polish soil but the fact that all poles recognize the piece of paper saying that it's illegal.

yes

Well its where the fences once were

>All of which are social constructs.
I'm not denying that though?

why do you keep going on about fences instead of recognizing that Poland is the area that is managed by Polish state authorities and services and not ones from other countries

It wasn't clear to me if you were implying you thought countries are not social constructs

I'm saying there's borders are a social construct as well and not something material unlike that guy was saying

My bad, we haven't defined the words and we had to for a clear debate.
My claims : countries are the result of both social construction, convention, and the legacy of humans, genetics. We stick with those who look like us and this goes back to the bacterias eras.

>We stick with those who look like us
I dispute this from personal experience.

Yes indeed. Borders were just a specific example because it is a good illustration of the concept and I'm not sure why that guy is going on about them