Why not just embrace radical social constructivism?

I pride myself on being as little like the French as possible.

File: jordanpetersonfemale.jpg (13KB, 338x338px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 338x338px

>>9381563
Good, good, keep on inventing yourself as you feel

Has an obfuscationist smell to it desu. It's one of those philosophical pet lapdog guys that's basically useless and unpleasant looking, but might make some people happy to carry around because their ovaries are dried up, won't be having any more kids and the kids they have, set of twins, are both left handed gays and won't be giving them biological grandsons. Also this >>9381563

>>9381521
It's not a meaningful conceptual paradigm, in itself and to operate inside it, at least it's less meaningful than its proponents like to believe, very much like psych. egoism and hard determinism and nihilism. Charitably speaking all of them serve merely a skeptical function in the grand scheme of things.

Noncharitably speaking the modus operandi is ideological suspicion and I'd rather be a neutral skeptic than a cognitively dissociated tool constantly begging the question.

Because evolutionary psychology has disproved social constructivism?

File: atheist.jpg (90KB, 661x960px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 661x960px

>>9381630
>Because evolutionary psychology has disproved social constructivism?
Let me guess, you also believe physical laws disprove the existence of God

>>9381650
No

Have you ever read any evolutionary psychology?

>>9381653
i read some steven pinker crap and it was a bunch of ridiculous redpill shit that he obviously wrote to get money from plebby womenhaters

What does the 'radical' part signify?

Because there's obviously things about humans that are socially constructed.

But that doesn't mean that *nothing* has biological reasons for existing.

I'd like to hear the social constructionist answer to why women who are pregnant get excessively emotional for example, or why women literally don't have as good spatial awareness as men.

>>9381658
What was ridiculous about it and which book did you read?

>>9381738
some book that was about language, but he kept putting in this unrelated disses against women using evolutionary psychology bullshit that just sounded like a buttblasted fag that's still mad the girl he liked in high school fucked a guy in a rock band instead of him...i mean i'm sure redpill faggots, mtgow homos, and assorted other anti-women queers ate it right up like puddle of jizz but it seemed pretty unbecoming for harvard professor to put such stupid shit in his book

then later i saw an interview with him where he was promoting his new stupid writing style book and he was telling a story about a time he didn't understand a psychology paper so it must because it was poorly written and not because he's a pleb who's just a "rockstar professor" to bait kids into going to harvard instead of yale and has taught psych 101 too many times and has grown soft, it was the kind of awful anti-intellectual shit that redpill faggots, stem dweebs and teaparty shitlords love to buy "look some guy at harvard says the reason i don't understand these academic journals is because they are shitty writers not because i'm a stupid stem major!" fuck off

>>9381754
actally, the tenured harvard professor with multiple best selling novels and high impact research papers is, in fact, be smarter than a random faggot on 4chan (viz. you)

>>9381817
ohhh so now you mean the universities aka ZOG indoctrination camps are full of smart people? i thought they were all filled zionist cultural marxists, now u tell me (((Steven Pinker))) is a genius? who knew!

>>9381817
remember goy, women are all whores who want to get drilled by tyrone and chad, science confirms that you trying to get laid is a waste of time, its just a scientific fact ok, so stay at home masturbating to cartoons and never reproduce, thank you, your friend (((Prof. Pinker))), Shalom!

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 8.30.19 PM.png (64KB, 193x129px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 193x129px

>>9381521
>Radical Social Constructionism
This is 2017, it ain't Reagan's America anymore. If you haven't converted to Landian Xenofeminist transhumanism you are probably just obsolete.

>>9381840
How does Land respond to Nietzsche?

Let me guess. He degenerates to materialism and accelerationism?

>>9381866
Land reads Nietzsche through Deleuze, essentially as a philosopher of difference and radical multiplicity in opposition to monolithic dialectics and Hegelianism. Overall, I'd say Land's more Schopenhauerian than Nietzschean

File: 1419645998214.png (494KB, 634x480px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 634x480px

>>9381899
>Land reads Nietzsche through Deleuze

In other words he does degenerate into materialism and accelerationism.