With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.
If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.
If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.
Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Nobody is saying that the similarity of colors to each other is socially constructed (or at least I've never heard this claim).
Ok, well I'm pretty sure that if ask people to pair up objects of the same color, they'll also do that regardless of their language or culture.
If you're going to say that no one claimed that the sameness of colors is not socially constructed, then I don't know what content is the sentence "color is socially constructed" even carrying.
Except for the Chinese combining 青 with 青, or the Russians separating синий from голубой....
You're talking about language, I'm talking "sort these according to how hard they are to separate with your eyes".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That the assortment of bands of the electromagnetic spectrum into color words is socially constructed.
Maybe I'm pedantic, but I'd call that "language is a social construct".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you read Foucault and his descendants, all "scientific knowledge" is socially constructed. Think of Power as an OSI layer between "reality" and "our understanding of reality", with the actual existence of immutable reality left deliberately ambiguous.
It's not that some things are "socially constructed" and others are "real", even if it's used that way tactically ("Science Is Real! No, your science is a socially constructed artifact of the cisheteropatriarchy"). It's that all our methods of understanding go through a filter of social power/biopower/whatever.
It's a very clever definitional superweapon.
Okay, I guess I should have known that there are people making that claim. However, I'm not trying to steelman it because I think it's dumb.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link