Whats wrong with sociology ?

Nothing.

Or the ones who want to make it great again ?

I took into sociology last year and I didn't hear anything that people online like to say it is.

Is it all memes made by people who never went to college?

If you go to community college/undergraduate courses, you'd understand how pathological it can be.

I think it really depends on the professor. Most of the posters itt have probably been in contact with left leaning ones.
As a law student i had one sociology (and 2 history) course(s).
The professor was very right wing. He outright told us a few days before the elections: "Are you going to vote? I hope you all go, as future lawyers and judges you should exercise your right to vote. A bit of advice. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. However i will plead that you don't vote for any kind of left wing party." He then listed all the right and center political parties and told us to get informed about their policies.

I took an anthropology course and was surprised at how unsubversive it was. No kill whitey, just a look at communal relations in basque villages

I took sociology 12 years ago as a freshman. Professor was an ex benedictine monk. He was the worst public speaker I've ever seen. He would literally shake while he struggled to read verbatim lecture notes to us in this high pitched crackly voice. He constantly shilled his book about the Catholic church's pedophile scandal. The class was easy to pass, but attendance was MANDATORY. Since he emailed his lecture notes after class, I'd just do other classwork while he stuttered along. Easy A.

I did, it was a community college intro sociology coarse. Professor was a large black women from the city. If anything it was the opposite of what people said it was, it was mostly just about sociology and not opinions of the professor.

She could have been described as lefty, sure, but she also said that we shouldn't take in refugees until we sorted out our own problems here and that she didn't have a problem with the confederate flag. But the class was not about her opinions so discussions about what she personally thought was rare.

She liked to hear about our opinions though.

It has a lot of potential but it's overwhelmed by ideology and political dogma

>Is it all memes made by people who never went to college?

Yup yup yup. Either that or people who portage that meme to feed their complexes you should be aware of what board you are on.

The popularity of shitty non-positivist critical theory research methods ruined the field

>tfw your qt mullata sociology professor stopped straightening her hair after completing her PhD

She was alright but she loved to talk about white privilege and oppression.

>white mother who raises them
>absent black father
>grow up to hate white people

What do mulattoes mean by this?

Chicago police covertly detained more than 7,000 people at a secret interrogation warehouse straight out of a Bond movie — more than double the amount of prisoners originally believed to be held and grilled there, according to a report.

Of the 7,185 arrestees questioned at Homan Square between 2004 and 2015, only 68 were allowed access to legal counsel, the Guardian reported, citing internal police records.

One drop rule I guess. Honestly the darker they are the less they hate whitey none are nicer than a dark as coal black dude from like south Carolina or the Caribbean.

Yes, the closest these people got to college was reading about some really weird thing in Breitbart.

PC shit is bigger on campuses than 10 years ago, but most of the memes are just huge victim complexes.

>study political science
>first semester
>communist manifesto
>darwinian left, is it possible?
knew some dude in sociology, said it was even worse, told me to copy papers, only "marxism" bullshit, colonialism is the reason why somalis in X country(which had 1 ship) is doing bad...

I took intro to sociology last year too. And it was nothing but SJW whining and "gender is a social construct" as well as " muh evil whitey". It was shameful.

It is a "science" that relies on answers ripe with variables. For example, a survey of 500 people (hardly a number worthy of drawing any conclusion) turns up with a majority of the survey saying they are against feminism. In order for the survey to be thoroughly conclusive, each individual needs to be questioned to ensure that all answers within the affirmative are in the affirmative for the same reason. Thing is, everyone is different. The survey already can't be used for any sort of conclusion cause the number of people questioned was so low. The best sociology can do is draw patterns and even then those patterns can hardly be depended on. I just think it's a lazy and poor branch of psychology.

It started out as simply studying society, humans on a mass group scale.

It's become an ideological thought-factory now. It's obvious. Any 'study' that can't handle rational debate should just GTFO.

Anthropology is less ideologically infiltrated. Depends on the country and uni, I guess. I took a semester of undergrad anthro before I switched to something employable. It was also not lefty at all. I mean, the profs were clearly mostly liberal-leaning, but moderate and honestly seemed to transcend politics, aware that it was all a masquerade.

It's not based on hard science.

>tfw when somehow ended up majoring in Sociology
>tfw it's just a leftist propaganda machine
>tfw the scientific aspect of it was completely absent
>tfw I want to die now

do people really believe gender is a social construct

The best bench press in history by a woman is 600lb (and that was with the use of multi-ply, unlimited equipment)

the best bench press by a male in history (RAW) that means no equipment at all is 736lb

>a survey of 500 people (hardly a number worthy of drawing any conclusion)
The standard size is 1000-2000 people, and earlier attempts at surveys with huge masses of people have shown that a huge mass of surveyed people is inferior to a smaller, but well-controlled sample.

>It is a "science" that relies on answers ripe with variables.
As is any subject studying chaotic systems, such as epidemiology. Soft sciences are still sciences, no matter how much you hate them. They may have less precision due to studying a more complex subject matter than, say, physics, but this can be compensated by reproducibility.

> I just think it's a lazy and poor branch of psychology.
Then you don't know what either are.

not trying to be a SJW but gender is not the same as biological sex.

for example you can be a tranny and consider yourself a "woman" but continue to be "male" (AKA born with a dick)

lol more complex?

im pretty sure General Relativity is more complex than anything Sociology talks about

umm no gender identity is pretty much determined by your biological sex, it plays a role

"Trans" people simply have a mental illness

I knew that this would trigger someone.

Complexity in this context refers to how well the variables can be controlled, not how complex the subject matter is.

...

I didnt say anything about biological sex influencing gender identity or not (nor did I say trans had mental issues or not).

Im saying that sex is you have dick = male you have vagina = female. But gender as a social construct is more like you wear dresses, you use makeup, you play with barbies = you girl.

Im not saying I agree or disagree with that theory, im just saying that in theory sex and gender are not the same (thus you can be male and woman at the same time).

Not even a stormkek but there is a small degree of truth in that. It's more
>self-loathing: the career

XD

Relies too heavily on social constructionism, generally. Nature an nurture are both important in social development

But gender is a social construct.

More like gender roles are a social construct.

gender is a social construct too

Doing social science is harder than doing maths. Maths is easy you just take axioms and translate them into something else lul

The problem with SJW and the vocal trannie activists is that they conflate biological sex and gender. Everyone agrees that gender expression, while being based on biology, has a cultural component that you can call "social construct". But trannies constantly use gender to refer to sex. Transgender itself is a confusion of the terms. It refer to people who feel they belong to a different sex than their body is, not a different gender. Otherwise nobody would need surgery, merely behaviour adaption. This is pervasive and hurts the cause of people who legitimately suffer from gender dysphoria, which is to say sex dysphoria.

This man is right. Everybody who disagrees is memeing.

Not the same user you're replying to, but I first started learning about the trans community, transgender and transexual were both accepted terms, usually with transexual being resreved for those who actually were planning, or had already, had surgery to change their sex. I think the fact that the term transexual fell out of vogue is one of the main reasons we have all these others "new" genders popping up--all the so-called Tumblr types and the like. These people wish to play with gender expression, which is not a terrible thing, but they have no real desire to change their physical bodies in order to do so. I think that difference of needing to change the physical body is what makes all the difference.

I wouldn't say changing the body is bad either. I think we just need more healthy attitudes about it, including from the people doing it themselves.

I like dick-girls, is what I'm saying.

I didn't mean to imply that physically altering the body is a bad thing either, I just feel there ought to be a distinction.

I like dick-girls too, man, who doesn't on this site?

>But gender as a social construct is more like you wear dresses, you use makeup, you play with barbies = you girl.
Those are gender roles dipshit. Gender still == sex

>that image
if gender isn't a social construct then why are genders so different among different societies?

Not really. People are complex niggers, even niggers.

While is basically right, I have seen a trend towards the left over the years (I attend a large public school in the US, so my understanding is obviously biased).

From what I've heard from a PhD candidate, there are two main types of sociologists, those that are activists and those that aren't. Because sociology tends to study social problems in society, it tends to attract cultural liberals, or make liberals out of its students. Not always, but generally. Even so, some sociologists still keep right-wing views. The distinction between the activists and non-activists is mostly as regards their personal lives. The activists spend a lot of time going to rallies, pushing for certain workplace policies, and even (occasionally) publishing works advocating action, though these are hard to publish. The non-activists, even if they're liberal, don't see it as their job to change the world, at least beyond the research they do. It's just that simple.

Two other notes. First, even the activist sociologists are a thousand times better than a member of a Gender and Women's Studies Department. They're better informed, and more attuned to real problems. The one I know, for example, considers bathrooms a non-issue because we could see the collapse of the healthcare system. Second, "marxism" in sociology is distinct from "marxism" in economics, political science, or literature. Marxist sociologists can be raging conservatives.

Explain

Cuz as far as I know, we're sexually dimorphic everwhere except Thailand

>soft sciences are still sciences
With that abysmal replication rate? No, they're not.

hahaha

Too right m8

And what's up with denying biological factors completely? It's a soft "science" that denies hard science

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

that's a simplistic first-level approximation of how gender operates. but it's one step. better than how most cis people understand it.

"Scholars use the concept of gender to denote the percieved differences and ideas about women and men, male and female. Fundamental to the definition of the term 'gender' is the idea that these differences are socially constructed. What it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, the definitions or understandings of masculinity and femininity, the characteristics of male and female identities -- all are the products of culture"

From Sonya Rose's "what is gender history"

Social """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""science""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>"He later committed suicide after suffering years of severe depression, financial instability, and a troubled marriage."

>Implying the massive suicide rate is somehow not part of an abnormal behaviour as seen with transgenders

>Obvious lack of cultural identity markers regarding race, religion, and nation yet we're seeing an explosion in LGBT, so we do know it's a cultural aberration-not genetic

>Still validating on the basis of what exactly?

The world would benefit from people taking it seriously.

Gender is a corollary to sex. Separate yet dependent concepts.

I've already been through Sociology 1010, so don't BS me you knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, marxism propagating, culture killer of a cunt

Just sending by definition gender is the socially constructed parts of the male and female identity. Sex is the purely physical parts. And obviously the two are very closely linked, but not everything that we think is male or female has a biological component. Some parts of it really are socially contructed.

Imagine a group of the most pretentious, smug and insufferable liberal arts students are locked in an airtight room, huffing each others farts for two weeks straight until they suddenly decide they're all totes scientists, and come out with a bunch of unreplicable, contrarian pseudo scientific nonsense that just coincidentally happens to validate all their invalid, naive personal politics.

You have sociology.

It's abnormal. It's bad for the long term projections of a societies birthrate, forcing a reliance on immigration and therefore a lack of social cohesion.

Good for collectivist panderers though.

Lemme just say, it's absolutely degenerate and "hurt feewings" on your behalf-or anyone else's-doesn't constitute an emergency shift in morals on my account.

I consider myself a good person. IRL, I do everything I can in terms of charity and respect.

This is wrong.

Global rule 3, if you have a point to make then make it. Keep your pointless insults to yourself.

Gender is the differences between the sexes, that is something defined by the society in which one lives.

>immigration creates a lack of social cohesion
explain america

Exactly this. Gender is the behaviour associated with a certain sex, wearing a dress or whatever is entirely based around culture.

Gendered behaviour can be observed from birth, and it matches up with sex for 99.8% of the population.

>what is a melting pot?

>Global rule 3

Where do you think you are? Are you new here?

"Right, let me humbly apologize user. A thousand apologies and utmost respect! I owe it to you, because you can't handle a random on the internet saying unorthodox things!"- what do you expect? If you can't take this, from someone you don't know nor have to encounter physically, can you see how overly sensitive you are and how that is affecting your world view?

>Gender is the differences between the sexes

The sexes are intrinsically different. Being born with balls or alternatively a vagina and having wildly different chemical makeups tend to do that. Gender is a corollary to that. Having those chemicals means that on a fundamental level-we do not perceive, react, or feel in the same way. Sexes are different. Gender is different. Sex is supposed to be physical and gender cultural, but the cultural markers are insignificant compared to the sexual markers/differences.

Women having sex with chads without the intention to procreate instead of settling down with a sissy boy is bad for the birth rate.

>still falling for the melting pot meme

It's why blacks are increasingly becoming racial irrendentists.

On JonTron's show, one guy talked about how Japan is incredibly racist. But who has more racial crimes? It's going to be heterogeneous societies like America.

Homogeneous societies are the way to real progress, no supremacy about it. It just cuts down on the perceptions of others being transgressors and victims.

>On JonTron's show
did you seriously just fucking say that, get the fuck out of here

are you missing my point on purpose?

just because it's related to sex with is biological doesn't mean anything. Different cultures have different expectations for what is masculine and what is feminine, and for what is expected of men and women. Far from insignificant.

Yeah m8. I'm not subscribed to him, but Sargon of Akkad did mention it. Thorough Youtube watchers would've seen it

I've put my cock in between enough legs that an user like you get's no authority over what's couth here

...

...

...

These always make people on Veeky Forums mad despite being positive and truthful.

read the fucking sticky
>a high level of discourse is expected
>please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider one guy (you don't say who he is or how he is qualified as an expert in sociology, or link any of his scholarly works) on a video game reviewer's youtube page to be a credible source.

>Far from insignificant.

Prove the significance then, instead of just repeating it like it's a moral imperative or an empirical fact. It's not. I'm not your socjus buddy that will just agree with whatever provocative thing you say.

So far as I can tell- sex has been far more significant in determining birth rates and social stability. Is that disputable?

He means, if a male (someone with a penis) fits female gender roles, then he's a woman.

Took intro to sociology, maybe my teacher was just shit but yeah it's a hilariously stupid field.

>that image
pic related

>So far as I can tell- sex has been far more significant in determining birth rates and social stability. Is that disputable?
I never said it wasn't, I said that there are significant differences in gender between cultures. Compare, for example, the differences in how gender was defined between classical athens and sparta.

forgot pic derp

stop treating this place like /pol/, it isn't, I'm treating you with respect why are you not treating me the same?

>a high level of discourse is expected

Am I not providing arguments? Am I not staying on subject?

Just because I'm a little rough around the edges on these forums doesn't mean we're not making progress or being civil. I could show you uncivil-but I'm not going to do that. I do have some sense of respect, believe it or not.

>supporting information as possible in your posts.

You want a source? Look up number of "hate crimes" in America, then look them up in Japan. Which do you think is higher in proportional and total amounts?

America in both, I would reckon. Now consider this-which culture actively promotes diversity? Is it Japan? No, it's America. But it still is doing significantly worse.

You could piece the argument together for yourself- but I understand it's impossible to fight against. Homogeneous societies are superior in crime rates and social cohesion. There is less sense of revanchism.

If you want me to hold your hand further, I could do the google scholaring myself and find the history books that show how many nations were fucked up by multicultural heterogeneous mixing.

Remember that time up there, we talked about cultural differences in gender?

These, apparently, are our cultural differences in respect. If I truly didn't respect you, I would post one poop post and leave. Trust me, I don't hate you. I'm 25 and I've seen some shit and been around, so it's probably different than the sterile class rooms I imagine your used to.

sigh*
>inb4
*you're

>you want a source
>look it up yourself lol I'm not going to handhold you
That's not how this works, its YOUR thesis so you need to provide the sources backing it up. Otherwise its just an opinion.

I'm 28 and I've seen plenty of shit too, don't make assumptions that you're so much more mature and so above everyone else.

You're rude.

So that's a yes, you would like hand holding.

So you don't feel cheated, here's the link to the google scholar search with varying points of view on racial heterogeneity and crime.

Note, it is not the same as ethnic heterogeneity in crime:
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ethnic heterogeneity crime&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,43

You'll notice inequality is mentioned in several peripheral articles. What do you think are the causes of inequality? If I say Asians will, with any sufficiently sized sample, outperform Bantu-African's, will you agree that it is part cultural, and largely biological or no? That's important for determining the direction of which papers we use.

Act like a kid, get treated like a kid. I don't know what your life is like. I just know what you make it sound like.

It's really hard to believe you're 28 + seen anything outside the walls of a classroom but we're not here to get too personal.

which articles?

>You're rude.
You can't expect different cultures to have the same standards towards respect/etiquette.
In China, it's polite to slurp soup, here it's not.
If you grow up in a house filled with people who casually curse, you will casually curse
If you grow up in a home where calling someone a faggot is commonplace, then you'll probably call people a faggot.
If you grow up in a place that glorifies crime, you'll probably be a criminal.
The internet isn't a monocultural place, there's lots of different people with lots of different cultures. Don't push your own standards onto other people because that's just telling them that the way they were raised and the way that they think are wrong. And people don't choose the way they were raised or the way they think so telling them they're wrong is wrong. At least imo

Ones on google scholar. We can find different sources if that's not going to work.