3 ms·

>I see far,far more comments from people like you who are upset over "manufactured outrage" than people who are actually outraged I'd venture that you aren't v

>I see far,far more comments from people like you who are upset over "manufactured outrage" than people who are actually outraged I'd venture that you aren't very active on Twitter?

apcragg 7y ago
Very active on Twitter, actually.
seandougall 7y ago
Amazing how different our experiences can be. I see Twitter drowning in that sort of thing whenever I hop on, along with the related complaint about “special treatment!!!1” whenever inequities get addressed.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  "whenever inequities get addressed" The whole point is not that people are upset over 'inequities being addressed' - it's that they do not necessarily feel that their are true inequities. The choice of your words kind of indicates the bias in perspective, not that it's wrong, but those words might be 'talking past the other' in the issue. From the article: 'a picture of a yellow person was still interpreted as white'. Well, so what? Is that really an 'inequity'? Who was perceiving it, why, and does it actually matter? Maybe it does, but there's a good chance that it does not. A 'yellow man in work outfit' - this is gendered, surely, but we live in a gendered world. Is it sexist? Possibly but probably not. We could put a woman, surely, but then what about non-binaries? Intersex? Transgender? It's probably worthwhile to have the discussion - but I'm afraid this discussion will not end. Case and point, a Guardian article I read recently demanding an end to the notion that 'family is two people with 1+ children'. Reasonable. So then how do we integrated this into emojis? The line has to be drawn, and wherever we draw it, it's going to be a little bit arbitrary and exclude some. We're all a little special and irrespective how how normative we may be in one context, we're not in another and that's that. (Saying this is a waspy male who's been an immigrant/minority in a few places including where I live now). We see portrayals of people every day - it doesn't mean that these portrayals are politicized or represent anything. FYI - the article refers to kind of a reduced concern among pop culture, which I think is partly what I'm getting at - this venture is getting a little pointless to most people, even 'allies'. We can be nice and reasonable people and still move on without being in a permanent culture war.
  - seandougall 7y ago
    To be clear, my reference to “inequities being addressed” was not about emoji. It was about actual issues where rights are involved. For example, whenever a state enacted marriage equality, there would a very outspoken group of people who would start whining about how gay people are getting “special treatment” when in fact they are getting equal, and equitable, treatment. We can also be nice and reasonable people without constantly accusing each other of trying to incite a culture war.

>I see far,far more comments from people like you who are upset over "manufactured outrage" than people who are actually outraged I'd venture that you aren't very active on Twitter?

apcragg 7y ago

Very active on Twitter, actually.

seandougall 7y ago

Amazing how different our experiences can be. I see Twitter drowning in that sort of thing whenever I hop on, along with the related complaint about “special treatment!!!1” whenever inequities get addressed.

sonnyblarney 7y ago
"whenever inequities get addressed" The whole point is not that people are upset over 'inequities being addressed' - it's that they do not necessarily feel that their are true inequities. The choice of your words kind of indicates the bias in perspective, not that it's wrong, but those words might be 'talking past the other' in the issue. From the article: 'a picture of a yellow person was still interpreted as white'. Well, so what? Is that really an 'inequity'? Who was perceiving it, why, and does it actually matter? Maybe it does, but there's a good chance that it does not. A 'yellow man in work outfit' - this is gendered, surely, but we live in a gendered world. Is it sexist? Possibly but probably not. We could put a woman, surely, but then what about non-binaries? Intersex? Transgender? It's probably worthwhile to have the discussion - but I'm afraid this discussion will not end. Case and point, a Guardian article I read recently demanding an end to the notion that 'family is two people with 1+ children'. Reasonable. So then how do we integrated this into emojis? The line has to be drawn, and wherever we draw it, it's going to be a little bit arbitrary and exclude some. We're all a little special and irrespective how how normative we may be in one context, we're not in another and that's that. (Saying this is a waspy male who's been an immigrant/minority in a few places including where I live now). We see portrayals of people every day - it doesn't mean that these portrayals are politicized or represent anything. FYI - the article refers to kind of a reduced concern among pop culture, which I think is partly what I'm getting at - this venture is getting a little pointless to most people, even 'allies'. We can be nice and reasonable people and still move on without being in a permanent culture war.
- seandougall 7y ago
  To be clear, my reference to “inequities being addressed” was not about emoji. It was about actual issues where rights are involved. For example, whenever a state enacted marriage equality, there would a very outspoken group of people who would start whining about how gay people are getting “special treatment” when in fact they are getting equal, and equitable, treatment. We can also be nice and reasonable people without constantly accusing each other of trying to incite a culture war.