this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
1207 points (98.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

8344 readers
3266 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:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kamen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

"Sure, but your feet would still get cold."

[–] ZMonster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

"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."

😊 πŸ«΄πŸ€

[–] saimen@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] outerspace@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago

Social constructs are real.things, so here you go

A sandwich is a social construct. But a social construct isn't always a sandwich.

Guess we're all social constructs (tf that mean)

[–] TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

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

[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Social constructs aren't practical.

[–] mobotsar@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 6 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 3 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Fish is not meat, but it's also not vegetarian

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah I had a friend from Grenada that told me this one day and I had trouble understanding the reasoning.

those people are morons

[–] bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago

The botanical definition is just "edible parts of a plant". The culinary definition however does differs per culture.

[–] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.

Then don't look.

[–] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

My dicks out. It needs to breath.

[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I'd be cool with that.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 2 points 3 hours ago

You should see a doctor about that.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.org 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Aren't hands much more nasty?

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Only if you don't wash them and don't clip your nails, or if you paint your nails that's also nasty

[–] Aristoxene@feddit.nl 1 points 7 hours ago

Health care is a social construct too.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

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?

[–] Potatar@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Are homo sapiens one such mammal?

[–] Potatar@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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?

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 15 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SketchySeaBeast@lemmy.ca 11 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. Not all social constructs are bad.

[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 2 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] don@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Good point, kid, and here’s another one: those toys you want me to buy you are a social construct. Playtime? Yep. Social construct. Shall I keep going? Video games are next.

[–] Leonixster@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Reminds me of the time I saw people arguing on Reddit about the phrase "time is a social construct" where some people were completely incapable of understanding what that means and conflating the concept of time with the fundamental physics thingymcgee (idk how to call it and entity feels wrong).

People were trying so hard to explain that minutes, months, seasons, etc. are all arbitrary things made up only for them to retort with "but a year is a full rotation of the sun" or "seasons exist because that's how the planet changes its climate".

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί