4 ms·

Nobody in their right mind actually thinks placement towards the top of a map actually denotes some kind of hierarchy.

api 5y ago
There is no top of the map since there is no objective frame of reference in space. The axis on which the Earth spins relative to its orbit is a point of orientation but which side is the "top" is arbitrary.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Yes, everybody knows that, and if someone asks me where Greenland is on a map, I will say "at the top" like a normal person.
  - api 5y ago
    You don't reference the galactic orientation by reference to the nearest superclusters? Pleb.
    - nerfbatplz 5y ago
      The enemy's gate is down
      - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
        Niceee
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"top" is arbitrary" Sure, but at the end of the day you've got to pick a frame of reference and people have settled on North being the 'top'. You can draw a map that ignores this convention and still have it be valid but you're going to confuse a lot of people. For what it's worth there's more landmass and population in the Northern Hemisphere so make of that what you will.
bsanr2 5y ago
Orienting with terms like "top" and "bottom" inherently denotes hierarchy. Whether you ascribe meaning to that hierarchy (and I think people do) is another matter. Explicitly stating direction rather than something that only refers to it with the aid of outside knowledge (the common orientation of maps) would be better. Otherwise, why don't we spin the map 180 degrees? Now the "correct" term would be "Super-Saharan Africa." Which is just as silly.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  > and I think people do Yes there do seem to be a lot of Eskimo supremacists around.
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Don't even get me started on the Prime Meridian. It's even more problematic than North being 'up' and South being 'down'! /s
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    People seem really upset at the notion. Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why. I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      >"Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why." No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' just in reverse. I know you really want to change the way people think but adopting the term "Super-Saharan Africa" is just going to make you look strange. I guarantee you no one will think "oh, this person means the southern part of Africa, but from the reference point of the equator to the South Pole." They're going to think "Wait what? A bigger Sahara? Desertification? What?"

api 5y ago

There is no top of the map since there is no objective frame of reference in space. The axis on which the Earth spins relative to its orbit is a point of orientation but which side is the "top" is arbitrary.

fallingknife 5y ago
Yes, everybody knows that, and if someone asks me where Greenland is on a map, I will say "at the top" like a normal person.
- api 5y ago
  You don't reference the galactic orientation by reference to the nearest superclusters? Pleb.
  - nerfbatplz 5y ago
    The enemy's gate is down
    - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
      Niceee
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"top" is arbitrary" Sure, but at the end of the day you've got to pick a frame of reference and people have settled on North being the 'top'. You can draw a map that ignores this convention and still have it be valid but you're going to confuse a lot of people. For what it's worth there's more landmass and population in the Northern Hemisphere so make of that what you will.

bsanr2 5y ago

Orienting with terms like "top" and "bottom" inherently denotes hierarchy. Whether you ascribe meaning to that hierarchy (and I think people do) is another matter. Explicitly stating direction rather than something that only refers to it with the aid of outside knowledge (the common orientation of maps) would be better. Otherwise, why don't we spin the map 180 degrees? Now the "correct" term would be "Super-Saharan Africa." Which is just as silly.

fallingknife 5y ago
> and I think people do Yes there do seem to be a lot of Eskimo supremacists around.
- bsanr2 5y ago
  I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
Don't even get me started on the Prime Meridian. It's even more problematic than North being 'up' and South being 'down'! /s
- bsanr2 5y ago
  People seem really upset at the notion. Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why. I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    >"Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why." No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' just in reverse. I know you really want to change the way people think but adopting the term "Super-Saharan Africa" is just going to make you look strange. I guarantee you no one will think "oh, this person means the southern part of Africa, but from the reference point of the equator to the South Pole." They're going to think "Wait what? A bigger Sahara? Desertification? What?"