5 ms·

Emojis communicate. Race of the speaker can add important context to the thing being communicated. Adding skin tone to emojis allows them to communicate this.

Emojis communicate. Race of the speaker can add important context to the thing being communicated. Adding skin tone to emojis allows them to communicate this. With emoji you can, in one glyph, raise your hand in a conversation to say, eg, "me too". With skin tone support, you can still raise your hand but can also say, "and I'm a person of colour" which may be a crucial piece of context for the conversation. TLDR People need to talk about race. People talk using emojis. Skin tone allows them to talk about race while using emojis.

f1refly 5y ago
what could you possibly add to a debate that is altered by an emphasis your skin tone before you bring it up?
- bonaldi 5y ago
  I'm slightly amazed that nobody sees any value in being able to talk about race using a full range of expression. The wave-hand emoji with a black colour allows you to compactly say "+1 as a black person", for example. That means emojis now support conversations about race. I've seen it used exactly like this in the wild in multiple fora.
  - f1refly 5y ago
    Yes, exactly. My point is why it is important what colour your skin is. Are there arguments that are only valid because someone is white? Isn't that racist?
    - bonaldi 5y ago
      Why is it important to be able to talk about what colour your skin is? Have you lived through the past year? There is more to language than debate-club argumentation, too. Consider - why is it important what gender someone is? Or age? Should emoji only have had unisex and age-less figures instead of its current set? Is it sexist to use a female-presenting emoji? These things all have obvious utility for communication, and you're ending up making some deeply strange arguments to try and dismiss that utility.
      - f1refly 5y ago
        > Consider - why is it important what gender someone is? Or age? It really isn't when it comes to arguments. An argument should not be attached to whoever brought it up. If it is it's hardly an argument and most likely something personal or morally loaded which is not suited for objective discussion. > Should emoji only have had unisex and age-less figures instead of its current set? Yes! > Is it sexist to use a female-presenting emoji? Obviously not and I don't know why you would get the impression it is. It is however mostly irrelevant: So now people assume you are an XX chromosome female or are trying to present as one. What now? Do you expect special treatment now? > These things all have obvious utility for communication, No they don't? And I don't know what would be "obvious" about it? You can't just present this as "obvious" fact when it's really not clear at all. > and you're ending up making some deeply strange arguments to try and dismiss that utility. You did not explain to me why my arguments are "deeply strange" and you also failed to explain why it should be useful to convey your own skintone in the context of discussion. My argument is that all you do with skintones and a nursing male is to bring political discrimination into electronic discussion, without providing any benefit whatsoever or even doing harm.
        bonaldi 5y ago
        > It really isn't when it comes to arguments ... not suited for objective discussion Emoji is used for more than arguing or "objective discussion"! Emojis are used for friendship, for flirting, for jokes, for sexting, for gossiping, for nattering. "I'm a woman who likes to dance", "I am white", "oh but I'm an old man" — these are all valid statements people say to one another; adding this capability allows emoji to be used to convey these meanings. If your argument is "people shouldn't conduct electronic discussion in these sorts of ways, when using emoji they should only have arguments over objective facts" that's ... well, it's a stance, but you're at odds with how billions of people communicate electronically. This is why I use terms like "obvious" and "strange".

f1refly 5y ago

what could you possibly add to a debate that is altered by an emphasis your skin tone before you bring it up?

bonaldi 5y ago
I'm slightly amazed that nobody sees any value in being able to talk about race using a full range of expression. The wave-hand emoji with a black colour allows you to compactly say "+1 as a black person", for example. That means emojis now support conversations about race. I've seen it used exactly like this in the wild in multiple fora.
- f1refly 5y ago
  Yes, exactly. My point is why it is important what colour your skin is. Are there arguments that are only valid because someone is white? Isn't that racist?
  - bonaldi 5y ago
    Why is it important to be able to talk about what colour your skin is? Have you lived through the past year? There is more to language than debate-club argumentation, too. Consider - why is it important what gender someone is? Or age? Should emoji only have had unisex and age-less figures instead of its current set? Is it sexist to use a female-presenting emoji? These things all have obvious utility for communication, and you're ending up making some deeply strange arguments to try and dismiss that utility.
    - f1refly 5y ago
      > Consider - why is it important what gender someone is? Or age? It really isn't when it comes to arguments. An argument should not be attached to whoever brought it up. If it is it's hardly an argument and most likely something personal or morally loaded which is not suited for objective discussion. > Should emoji only have had unisex and age-less figures instead of its current set? Yes! > Is it sexist to use a female-presenting emoji? Obviously not and I don't know why you would get the impression it is. It is however mostly irrelevant: So now people assume you are an XX chromosome female or are trying to present as one. What now? Do you expect special treatment now? > These things all have obvious utility for communication, No they don't? And I don't know what would be "obvious" about it? You can't just present this as "obvious" fact when it's really not clear at all. > and you're ending up making some deeply strange arguments to try and dismiss that utility. You did not explain to me why my arguments are "deeply strange" and you also failed to explain why it should be useful to convey your own skintone in the context of discussion. My argument is that all you do with skintones and a nursing male is to bring political discrimination into electronic discussion, without providing any benefit whatsoever or even doing harm.
      - bonaldi 5y ago
        > It really isn't when it comes to arguments ... not suited for objective discussion Emoji is used for more than arguing or "objective discussion"! Emojis are used for friendship, for flirting, for jokes, for sexting, for gossiping, for nattering. "I'm a woman who likes to dance", "I am white", "oh but I'm an old man" — these are all valid statements people say to one another; adding this capability allows emoji to be used to convey these meanings. If your argument is "people shouldn't conduct electronic discussion in these sorts of ways, when using emoji they should only have arguments over objective facts" that's ... well, it's a stance, but you're at odds with how billions of people communicate electronically. This is why I use terms like "obvious" and "strange".