• Gladaed@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wrong, wearing socks is required to not get blisters. And shoes keep featsies safe.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Sure socks are a social construct, but so are the things that let you eat ice cream, watch your favorite streaming service, or play your favorite video game. In fact the only non-social construct actions you involve yourself in are eating, sleeping, and expelling bio waste. Even those you seem to have no problem follow the social rules around. If you’d like to abandon society and escape into nature free of the bounds of social constructs, you’re welcome to do that when you’re 18 and can afford enough to buy a plane ticket to Fairbanks, Alaska. Until then, you have to put on your socks.”

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’d like to abandon society and escape into nature

      Where, exactly, can you do that? There’s really no unclaimed nature out there anymore, at least none that can let a person survive on their own. And if you’re not surviving on your own, you’re part of a society.

  • vrojak@feddit.orgdeleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “You’ve made a correct observation, now please provide an argument why the social construct of x should not be adhered to. X is dumb and I don’t wanna is not sufficient.”

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s just dumb.

          It’s dumb to shoot yourself in the foot or jump off a cliff.

          Don’t do dumb things.

          • derek@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Both examples are similar to anapodotons. They include an implicit thesis. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot because bullets do way more damage than movies let on, your foot will likely never work right again, and even if it does you’ll have endured months of easily avoidable pain and suffering. Don’t jump off a cliff because you’ll likely die and, even if you survive, you’ll have to endure a lifetime of debilitation, pain, and suffering, that could have been easily avoided.

            These are also similar to thought-terminating cliches and tangentially related to mondegreens. Anapodotons can be insidious. Fluent speakers unfamiliar with the phrase can tell there’s more to it and, since the general meaning can be implied through context, folks avoid the awkwardness of admitting their ignorance (something we should all be more comfortable with - but that’s a separate discussion) and miss out on the nuance of some “common wisdom”.

            A bit of common wisdom is that “common sense isn’t common”. These cultural and psychological quirks manifest in our languages are part of the reason why. Not shooting yourself is a great example because for most people this is an obviously stupid thing to do and, yet, hundreds of people accidentally kill themselves via negligent discharge every year and thousands more are maimed. How often do we believe “don’t shoot yourself” is sufficient advice when, in reality, proper safety training is required to keep that person alive? How often do those hearing the common wisdom believe they know all they need for that cliche to work its magic?

            There’s a lot of value in being aware of these linguistic traps and avoiding them when we think to do so. Like being the child that chooses to stop perpetuating generational trauma and abuse. We can choose better words, better phrases, and stop expecting that other people already know what we take for granted.

    • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok but wearing shoes is a social construct. People didn’t wear shoes for thousands of years before shoes came along and they were just fine and full of blisters.

    • zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Arguments like these don’t work with kids. Let them experience themselves what is best for them. And have spare socks ready in case they change their mind afterwards

      • myslsl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if the argument doesn’t persuade them at the time it still makes sense to point it out to them so that they are (hopefully) aware of it later.

        • zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fully agree. Always verbalize your thoughts and intentions. Give the kids the ability to learn.

      • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, if that’s a reasonable option, but letting the kid hurt themselves isn’t always practical. Letting the kids find out ‘messing with the pot of boiling water is bad’ the hard way, as an example, is not what I would consider good parenting.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s pretty clear they’re referring to uncomfortable stuff, not dangerous stuff. Obviously don’t let them do dangerous stuff.

          • zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. Always protect your little ones. It is okay if they experience negative consequences, as long as it doesn’t harm them.

            Trying to drink from a glass of water and get fully soaked is okay, even if the experience is not entirely positive.

            Touching a hot oven is not okay. Here you have to protect them. The best you can do is try to explain why it is not okay to touch it.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know what the social aspect is apart from how the socks appear, but this isn’t why they exist.

        • VoidJuiceConcentrate@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          if you didn’t wear socks then you’ll have to wash your shoes daily or risk getting something like a yeast infection of the foot or athletes foot.

        • saltesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Warmth, protection, hygiene.

          If you were born the only person on earth, you would eventually have something like socks on your own accord. This is function, not social. They wouldn’t be Xmas themed though, since no society exists to have invented Xmas and to show off your socks to.

          Social constructs are, belt definition, ideas or concepts.

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love when people say “ackchyually you’re wrong” without offering an alternative.

        • saltesc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Replying to wrong comment?

          You’ll have to explain otherwise, since it makes no sense based on what I said.

  • confusedwiseman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Very, good. That’s correct. However social constructs have consequences for non-adherence. As much as I agree with and wold like to support your stance, this is not something for which I’m willing to invest my energy or time to resolve.

    Your compliance and the requirement from me, the adult, to you the child; yep, this sucks. When I’m no longer charged with your care and have completed my duty to prepare you to operate with the constructs of society, you may make this decision for yourself.

    Until that time, you can put your socks on, or I will. Your choice. Love you.

    In the other vein of this, I hate sock and shoes, so I’m pretty much good with skipping all of this. There are consequences that come with that decision too.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some social constructs exist for a good reason. Part of growing is learning to tell which are good and which are bad.

  • Geodad@lemmy.worlddeleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Technically clothes are a social construct.

    Religion as well.

    • [deleted]@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Clothes as a concept started with utilitarian purposes like staying warm or cool. There are a lot of social constructs around clothes including when and what is worn in what contexts, but not the reason they exist in the first place.

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dad: Boning your mom is a social construct.

    Mom: The fuck you just say about me?

    Dad: Uh…

  • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone that grew up hating socks (parents only bought the ones with a thick seam at the toe), yes, the requirement to wear socks is a social construct. There are other ways to avoid smelly feet.

    Currently, I wear shoes with washable insoles and I have multiple sets of these insoles. I also rotate between shoes, and these shoes can also go in the wash.

    I do wear (nice, seamless) socks when I go hiking, but for day-to-day at the office they’re unnecessary.

    • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If my socks have seams at the toes, I wear them inside out. I believe I learned that from Sean Connery in Finding Forrester.

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      huh, i did not know there are more reasons for wearing socks than your feet being cold.

      after a certain temperature i physically cannot wear socks as my feet get too hot. i either get to put on sandals, or i’ll take those full shoes and socks off in the middle of whatever bullshit forces them on me

    • RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was going to reply with “wait until their feet are in pain after a day without socks”, but then your post happened. Looks like not everyone is built the same.