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

You’re just using an objective measuring stick.

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

based and free will pilled

<:ahem:639979147782914084>

yeah no