Message from @Rogal Dorn
Discord ID: 657442203299348501
I wouldn’t support fascism, just monarchism
the way 'social construct' is used in the public discourse, it is used in order to indicate that something has little or no underlying reality outside of the way that it is treated by human societies
btw I'm not reading your messages
I'm just explaining to you, not arguing with you
Whats happening
I missed the whole day in Stardew Valley
<:impotentrage:552803856535257090>
<:why:638779720015675405>
what would be the american monarchy then smart one
NPC logic: social construct = 100% environmental meaning __no genetics__
1. Do you think if it’s socially constructed or not is a meaningful position or not? I think it’s worthless because the leftist talking point to keep the debate from moving any where.
based and pee pee poo poo pilled
I’m more concerned with actually convincing people.
based and sunshine pilled
I’m just saying monarchism > fascism
Race as a definition is socially constructed.
America would need a military dictatorship
Fascist Monarchy FTW
it may be technically true under some theory of social construction as the basis of human knowlege or something like that, but that's utterly irrelevant to the Race Realism debate
With me as their dictator, and then invade mexico and canada and cede all the territory to spain
<:ahem:639979147782914084>
yes of course its meaningful
Species is a socially constructed definition.
you should never concede linguistic territory where you don't have to
@snake it is socially constructed.
I mean I suppose it depends on who ***exactly*** you're talking to
Hell I can use the continuum fallacy on species
but in terms of the debate as a whole
And indeed some people do
This is why I used to poisonous fruit analogy.
The Multiverse is a lie
<:big_brained:396156349676781569>
Categorizing a fruit as poisonous or not is socially constructed. It’s meaningful.
It’s functional.
But it’s still socially constructed. Holding this position isn’t functional or convincing anyone.
unbased