[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


>"There is no such thing as "color". Classifications such as "red", or "yellow", or "green" are antiquated, disproven, colorist products of a hateful and uneducated past. Just look at the image, where would you even draw the line between these supposed "colors"?
Your move, colorists
>>
>>18657545
I’m colour blind.
>>
>>18657559
The privilege to be colorblind is still a privelege. In a truly equal society we cannot be colorblind, but have to treat the colors equitably.
>>
>>18657545
The delineation of the spectrum into specific colors may be a social construct, but it is a useful social construct. And from a pragmatist lens, that matters more than intrinsic truth-value.
>>
>>18657716
That's racist
>>
>>18657716
>The delineation of the spectrum into specific colors may be a social construct
You’re an unironic retard, while OP was only pretending
>>
>>18657740
Language, money, and civilization itself are social constructs. That doesn't make them illegitimate or less meaningful. Even most hard scientists now are post positivists, seeing the lens of human interpretation as an unavoidable fact of life.
>>
>>18657836
Except for...
>>
Weird analogy. But why don't we just set strict definitions for colors because their wavelengths are objective so it is actually really simple to define colors objectively if you wanted to because color is based on wavelength lol.
>>
>>18659425
>why don't we just set strict definitions
Because there would be no consensus on what those strict definitions would be.
>>
>>18660576
Just vote on it and then everyone who disagrees is now objectively wrong and you can just frame it like they are semi-colorblind lol.
>>
>>18660587
It would hardly make a difference. For example it's officially taught to kids that there are 7 continents, but other definitions saying there are as few as 4 are not really treated as "objectively wrong".
>>
>>18657740
It is a social construct tho, different historical societies had different ways of classifying color. Most notably, there have been more cultures on earth that think blue and green are shades of the same color than not
>>
All reality is like that if examined closely. Your trying to grab smoke
>>
>>18657545
Correct. The fact that a white an black can produce a brown abomination doesn't mean whites and blacks don't exist.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.