This is something else I've wondered about. There seem to be these fierce online debates and movements that center around various questions of the validity of so called "social justice" issues which are full of lots of emotive stuff from both sides pro and con (e.g. terms like "man/white/cis/whatever 'splaining'" and "SJWs" are thrown against the opposing 'sides' respectively from pro and con sides against con and pro sides). One of the central pieces of this argumentation seems to hinge around this notion of this alleged philosophical idea that "reality is a social construct" against "reality is objective". But the thing is, reading it, I wonder if the various partisans involved really do or do not understand exactly what they are bandying about in these heated arguments.
In particular, the "reality is a social construct" is attributed variously to the "left", "academic left", "Cultural Marxism" but also "postmodernism". The first two terms seem like political charges, the third seems like a weird slur, but the fourth is a legitimate philosophical reference. Also perhaps "social theory" or "critical theory" is indicted with as being "guilty" of this "bad" philosophical "notion".
But the question is, is that a truly fair characterization, and if so, what exactly does it mean? Because to me, if you take it absolutely literally, it cannot be true, for a very simple reason: I cannot sign an agreement with someone that will magically make gold appear by miracle in my room by both of us agreeing that that gold now exists in the room. If reality behaved this way, it would seem a lot of politicking and wars would be easily resolved: we could just "legislate" or "social construct" literally every resource we wanted into existence. Yet I would find it hard to imagine this argument would have escaped notice of everyone who has argued what is construed as "reality is a social construct". So thus I'd like to know, what does that phrase actually mean in regard to what it's actually referring to by any serious thinker and not merely some random joe-blow with an opinion on the internet and an ax to grind (of either partisan persuasion), is it even a fair characterization at all, and if so, how is the above argument answered and dismissed?