“Muh social construct”

>mine taught me boys and girls are the same and that gender is a social construct.

Cant fool a fool op.

Oh yeah...

>Berger and Luckmann introduced the term "social construction" into the social sciences and were strongly influenced by the work of Alfred Schütz.

>Schutz was born in Vienna, Austria, into an upper-middle-class Jewish family

IMAGINE AGAIN!!

they are as much of a social construct as dog races are

Tell him in that case you can't be racist.

say that species are also a social construct
i.e. the concept of species is just very practical but not satisfactorily defined

Take a negroid, a mongoloid, and a caucasoid from your class, line then up in front of the class and point out the differences in their skulls.

Bone marrow transplants

BEAT HIM WITH A HAMMER WHILE SCREAMING "DIE NAZI!"

dont, tell him what he wants to hear and go one with your life...

Literally everything but eating sleeping killing and raping is a social construct.
Ask xim what xir point is.

Races are general categories, we could deconstruct literally any general category using the same logic for race:
>chairs and couches are different types of furniture
>it's possible for a chair to have more in common with a couch than with another chair
>so there's more variation within these groups than within groups
>therefore furniture categories are a meaningless social construct
>so it's ok to send you a plastic folding chair when you ordered a $2000 couch

See how using this logic for literally anything else leads to retarded conclusions?

all of these rats need zyklon

The idea of social constructs is a social construct.
Also, the idea that the professor should lecture the students instead of the students lecturing the professor is a social construct.

Whack him over the head with an osteology or forensic anatomy textbook.

Reality is a social construct.

I'm pretty sure to donate organs the ethnicity must match, your biology professor probaly knows one thing or two about this.

> Well my genetics professor said race is genetic and showed the genetic differences between different races. So your professor can go fuck himself.

It's a social construct but also genetic reality. There is genetic distance between populations but you can put the dividing lines yourself, it depends on your classification model.

Attached: K15_V3_1.png (1280x524, 88K)

LOVE YOU!

>My professor keeps spouting off that race is a social construct.
>Prove otherwise?
Skin colour, genetics. Professor will come back with mutt examples of unclear race, like mediterreneans and arabs, but that doesn't mean that no races exist outside of mutts or that they didn't exist before interbreeding took place to create the mutts.

German Shephards are German Shephards, Datschunds are Datschhunds. They can interbreed. You can make a unremarkable insalient god-knows-wtf breed out of them and go "see no races!" but all it'll be is an unclear mixture of the two EXISTING races.

For fun ask him if its just a social construct why is it that you can't identify as a blakc person.

It is somewhat of a social construct. However people often misunderstand this as meaning that race has no biological basis or that there are no large differenceces between the races. It is somewhat arbitrary how you divide humans. You could divide them into into two groups like Eurasian and african, or three like caucasians, negroids mongoloids, or you could go further. Similarly it is somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line for "what is white". You could draw it at nirth india and nirth africa, at greece, at the balkans, or even exclude the balkans and eastern europe. This does not suggest that whites don't exist or that they don't differ massively from other races.

Burgers are shit at philosophy
If I put a gun up your face and tell you if you cross that line faggot BOOM BOOM. It's an imposition of myself, not a social construct. That's what it all comes down to, the power of the group, and the use of force to affirm its own will.
Neither that or your reaction would be social constructs.

Everyone here is discussing it like it's an actual thing or has always been a thing when it's literally a fucking theory by a couple of Jews in a book they wrote but nobody ever questions the origins of "it's a social construct" and assume it's legit scientific academia.

Laws are "constructs" to create a functioning society and civilization but races, species, sex etc. is not, they are biological and scientific facts of reality and have not been constructed.

One of the key parts in all Marxist literature is to make it difficult to understand and that's the goal it aims for and achieves in most cases so people will blindly follow as though they were just enlightened because when broken down into simplistic terms even the biggest village idiot would see it for the nonsense that it is.

Jews.. totally not trying to undermine society at all..!

>"WERE ALL HUMAN!! WERE ALL THE SAME THING, GOY!!!"

>"Oh, but fuck white people"

DNA

I FUCKING HATE SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATES

There's no such thing as a social construct.

Saying race is a social construct is a fancy way of saying it is a system of categorization used within a society. All this arguing on Jow Forums about when is white and who isn't proves your profs point. It's good to be aware that some ways we categorize things are open to recategorizing.

The brainwashing part of the lecture starts when he tries to say it's "just" a social construct. He's trying to obviscate the very real differences between races. As if the social construct of racial categorization isn't constantly reaffirmed when different races interact within a given society.

>It's a social construct but also genetic reality.
>It's a social construct

It's not though! You could argue a rock is a social construct. It's not though, it's defined by us and its definition is constructed by society. It is still a hard inanimate object though. That is reality. It is not a construction. It exists with or without humans.

A law is a social construct. A border is too. They are constructed by society and only exist with society. They are not reality.

That's the thing, a lot of replies itt don't even understand the theory of social construction and that's the precisely the aim of Marxist theories because when they fire you at them and you don't understand them, they claim a victory as you have no defense.

A Marxist would just laugh and proclaim they are right over someone who does not understand their Marxist theory.

where do social constructs come from? never-never land? no.

social constructs are biological constructs

As opposed to a biological construct? Wtf

The fact that no one can agree on what "white" is proves his point

They can agree what African is though, so no.

Social constructs are a social construct

People from europe are european, therefore white.

It is a social construct, but that doesn't mean what he wants it to mean. The taxonomy (i.e. who gets sorted into which bin) is socially constructed, but it still corresponds to an actual "on-the-ground" reality. If this weren't the case, race would not be a predictor for osteoporosis or heart disease. (Innocuous examples like these help prove the point)

But they don't exist.

Show your professor this picture and ask her to guess the race of each.

Attached: Albinos.jpg (878x829, 207K)

It's as much of a social construct as specie is.

fucking albinos

>My professor keeps spouting off that race is a social construct.
What does he mean by that?

Are all social constructs the same? Maybe some have more basis in reality than others. Maybe that's a better way of thinking about it: race is a social construct, with this or that amount of basis in reality.

So we would ask about racial boundaries, what are they mapping onto in reality?

The term "race" isn't used in biology. So in a very technical way, "race" is a social construct.

Talk about sickle cell anemia's prevalence in blacks or types of heart disease's prevalence in whites and those differences being determined genetically and inheritable. Phrase it as a question. If they continue to resist, drop it. Don't try and redpill your professor or class. It never works and will get you into more trouble than its worth. Simply mentioning these glaring flaws in their philosophy is all thats needed to draw some attention from those that aren't brainwashed in the class.

If you want more information, look up taxonomic or anthropological differences between causasoids and negroids. The skull differences are especially prevalent, and another thing to ask about if you want to push your luck with your professor (a coroner, with nothing but a skull can determine if a person is caucasian or african at a glance). The biological terms for our differences would likely be "species" and "sub species" since niggers bred with whites produce long term viable offspring, but don't say that at school or you'll be fucked.

If a social construct corresponds to an abject reality, then it is no longer a social construct.

Whites = creepiest
Asians = cutest
Blacks = niggest

This is the motte-and-bailey they use.

It's "just a social construct with no relation to objective reality" when they are on the offense, and "who said social constructs don't attempt to describe reality" when on the defense

Biology is a social construct

>HUMAN RA-!

>Ahem
>Species
>-Subspecies
>-multiple groups

Social construct?

Okay remove it, what exists? Subjectivity? how do you objectively know subjectivity exists?
Determinism? Self defeating.

Eventually through this retarded 700 million mile rabbit hole you'll realize that this is really bullshit and they know it, they're just going along with their meme to genocide you whilst acting dumb.

See the problem with pol is that they think the left can't meme when they keep taking their memes seriously ironically whilst not being able to detect that they know its bullshit they just don't know how to describe their real opinions.

Everything about the left is intentionally done retardedly to obscure its nefarious intents. Its coordinated retardation mixed in with statistical and biological retardation, but it is intentional, not accidental. The most ironic part about it, is that the right agrees with the left ironically, when the left is acting, its being retarded ironically UNIRONICALLY.

Attached: 1508544160217.jpg (916x892, 79K)

>Talk about sickle cell anemia's prevalence in blacks or types of heart disease's prevalence in whites and those differences being determined genetically and inheritable.
He could also mention that Asians have what's called dry earwax. Can also talk about Native American's genetic predisposition to alcoholism due to not having the proper enzymes. Whites are also more prone to skin cancer. Whites are also the least lactose intolerant. Blacks have more dense muscle fiber. Jews are prone to Tay Sachs. There's a million of these.

Social construct equates to fantasy? Just trying to understand what is meant by "social construct" so bear with me.

Races are words we use to identify different groups of humans that have been created through evolution. "Color" may just be a word, but it is still an actual thing you can see weither we give it a "label" or not. You can call us all humans, but cannot deny we are not all the same breed. If you breed a Chihuahua with a Yorkie, some call it a mutt, but some call it a Chorkie, a new breed, to differentiate from other mutts. Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change its physical attributes.

Your professor is a human. He calls himself a "professor" because he owns a peice of paper that says he is. That peice of paper was given to him by other people with peices of paper. The only reason he is a "professor" is because we agree his degree has value.

Now, you tell me what appears to be the true social constuct.

Bone marrow, IQ scores, height, build, etc.

It's not like this matters anymore, this isn't about facts or reason it's just about 'feelings' and 'belief' now. Reason left this discussion a long time ago.

It just seems absurd to discuss it because it's a theory from a book wrote in the 60's by a couple of Jews. It's like taking another random book and presenting it as factual in universities.

Average Joe on the street will just be confused over this Marxist speak language and rightly so. It's just garbage and what they use to replace the traditions of civilization.

>Race is a social construct
Except that forensic anthropologists can determine the race of an individual solely by the shape of the skull, but no... tell me more about how race is a social construct.

>Social construct equates to fantasy?
The leftist will let you think it does, until that becomes untenable. Truthfully, the "social construct" is just a semantic/taxonomical layer on top of a very real reality.

>we found a white guy named jamal!
>jamals are no longer niggers
I hate this "counterexample" game they play. Categories are stereotypes and therefore cannot be counterexampled on a singular basis.

He means that you can change your skull size if you hang out with the real people.

Attached: 4934762be89367066f114e37c7b837eb.jpg (980x1154, 351K)

The biggest retard i've ever encountered unironically implied that social norms don't conform to something greater rather than just standing on itself alone. with no relation to anything what so ever despite being coordinated.

What causes people think there are races?
>Because of different appearances of people.
What causes the different appearance of people?
>Separation of populations for tens of thousands of years
Why are racial separations more important than subracial separations?
>Because racial separations were longer than subracial separations.
Are longer separations usually considered more important than shorter ones?
>Yes, each level of biological classification from kingdom down to species has a longer separation, and the longer the separation, the more important it is for describing differences between organisms.

That isn't what post-modernists believe that a social construct is though. The problem with these discussions is that the average normie has a mistaken idea of what "social construct" is supposed to mean, and so only agrees out of a misapprehension.

Thanks guys. I think I understand it a little now. Motte-and-Bailey. Had to look that up.

It's social construct if somebody says only Scandinavians are white and everyone that doesn't cluster in the region isn't. But you can also say everyone from North Africa to Finland is white. That would be a social construct based on real data. My point is you can make constructs that are based on reality but they won't be set in stone and can be manipulated for political reasons. That is what I define as a social construct, something that you can change on a whim.

Genetically it is possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at many loci at the same time. If you test allele frequencies at thousands of different loci simultaneously you can even ask the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one racial population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different racial populations?"

This research has actually been done (Witherspoon et al.) and the answer is never. In short, there are racial characteristics which highly correlate with other racial characteristics, which by definition means that race is taxonomically informative and thus scientifically significant.

Pushback from ideologues and the sociologists is politically motivated and should be dismissed as having no bearing on the question insofar as biology/genetics is concerned. As far as the latter is concerned, race is real and scientifically determinable.

Reminder: Race is a not a term used in biology. Its the loophole they use by saying that "science says we are all one race."

Reminder: Do not attempt to redpill your professor. Its not going to work. Do ask a leading question or two, but don't push it. Its better to get your degree to be able to undermine them from within than be expelled for political reasons.

Reminder: If you challenge them on the biology front, the most likely outcome is they will backpedal, and say that the stereotypes are the social construct, and the differences are minor anyway.

Film Your Marxist Professors is also a good route.

my boy why are you still taking him seriously

don't get mad get even

game the class for an A your prof. is an idiot

It existed before our definition, therefore it requires no explanation of existence from us. It is independent of human interaction. Meaning its not social at all, its name maybe, its definition maybe, but thats only mental and lingual tautology, physically, and metaphysically those status's are independent of lingual cues and or mental cues.

All those terms are fake, created by charles darwin, a white supremacist who was wrong.

Attached: ethopia.jpg (236x354, 15K)

I wouldn't argue it... Maybe just mention that this is not exactly a consensus among scientist who are knowledgeable about the subject.

Any sort of grouping of *anything* by humans is inherently a 'social construct'... this doesn't mean it isn't accurate or useful.

I find a lot of leftists are slowly accepting the science, but they are using a lot of semantic games and obfuscation to make everything seem more jumbled and confusing than it is.

>since that will likely get you thrown out of school
It probably would, for sheer stupidity.

>post-modernists
stop
using
this
word

Not after we build that wall

These people identify that way, my dude.

>implying IQ doesn't differ among the races

Do not address those who want to be addressed by a word that doesn't resemble reality, not because of your perspective of reality, but because their opinions and your opinions are dependent upon reality and reality is independent from your and their opinions

ask him if being able to tell the race of someone from their bones is a social construct

it could be argued that race differences are cultural, and that those cultures are social constructs

>race is a social construct
>all human DNA is subdivided into two distinct groups: african & non-african
pick one

No, that isn't what I implied.
Race science hasn't been credible for at least 100 years. Why are you still spouting this?

But you did. You implied that notion was stupid.

Good point. Please remind me of the school of thought that says - if there's nobody to observe it, it doesn't exist. I cold forgot. I like your post btw.

23andMe

A social construct is what it says on the can. A construction of society.
Problem is, while a construction of society is indeed nothing more than that, the Platonic concept behind such concepts are still objectively the same, whether or not you consider the construct built around it by society to be fake or not.
For example : Race is a social construct. It is true; the term and definition of "race" is indeed built up by a society, or at least a scientifical and/or normie community. However, the concept, the Idea of Race exists for two reason :
>The mere fact that it is mentionned and argued about by consciousnesses means the Idea exist, and as such, as always existed and always will. See Parmenide to understand this point.
>"Race" as mentionned by its supporters in the scientific community has physical evidence backing it up; statistics, hormonal and encephallo-chemicals; evenb a leftist is ready to admit that the skin color itself, the bone structure and some physical abilities are related to genetical information and adaptation to their species/sub-species' environment. This make the Idea physically manifested, and gives even more credit to point number one.

This is their point: You can slice it into two, or three, or four, or five at your arbitrary pleasure. You can't even disagree with this (because it's more or less correct). But it also doesn't prove what they're hoping you'll think it does.

And yet it is easier for cops to ID the race of skeletal remains than check their hip bones for gender.

>thinks gender isn't a social construct.

Whiteness between Europeans is hit and miss, yeah, people will debate over that but it's pretty clear between a European or an Asian when put against a Sub-Saharan African. Clearly the racial differences are there. Even if you wanted to say the DNA and everything internally was 100% the same the outward appearance isn't therefore both groups are not the same.

I think that means race is not socially constructed but certainly debated over similar groups (whites)

When someone uses social construct for race they don't mean one thing is and one thing isn't though, they use it as an absolute. That no races exist at all.

"some races or definitions of whiteness are socially constructed" would be more truthful.

Whenever I see them talking this though, they are usually saying there is no difference between a Northern European and African though and it's 9 times out of 10 politically motivated (i.e. don't be racist because we all the same) which is Marxism again, it;'s not about educating, it's about changing, changing everything that made Western civilization what it is.

Ask him what exactly he means by that.
If he says that "There are more differences within races than between races." Then you say: "That only makes sense if you admit that races exist."

Im tired of this fallacious argument:

>race is a social construct because race has been defined differently over time. someone who's considered black in america might be consider mixed in brazil

Just because humans are bad at defining things, that does not mean race does not exist at all. Leftists use this terrible argument all the time.

The answer is easy. The Jews

>Race science

Attached: main-qimg-8943f343e355996f9b0b68c7c317fb87.png (602x602, 332K)