4 ms·

One could argue the original band-aid was just rubber colored and non-racial in some way, but keeping ignoring it matched light color skins better was becoming

by hrktb 5y ago

One could argue the original band-aid was just rubber colored and non-racial in some way, but keeping ignoring it matched light color skins better was becoming a choice in itself. Emojis are the same to me, in that they were introduced with very limited scope (original ones were simple outlines, with bright pink, blue or green faces). Then expanded and got more detailed, less caricatural, and stopped fitting a single byte. IMO the can of worm got opened the moment we got detailed drawings with artistic choices that best match one category of people. We have shown we weren't limited in number, and accepted a ton of complexity to deal with flags or gender representations for instance, it would be tone-deaf to just go on saying it's too complex to also care about racial representations where they might apply. If you're arguing for getting back to simple outlines of random colors, I'm with you. But I think we're not in a stable place right now to say "we made enough diversification, let's just stop here".

fossuser 5y ago
> “ If you're arguing for getting back to simple outlines of random colors, I'm with you.” Yes that is what I want. I basically agree with everything you said - I just wish we chose generality over specificity.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > Yes that is what I want. You have it - use the yellow emoji. If that's not good enough, then commission your own emoji font. Or, don't use emojis/don't use Unicode. And let other people communicate in the way that they want.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    I’m not talking about personal use? I do use the neutral colors, I just think inserting identity into something is a worse outcome. Generality would be better. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049269 Or this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049517
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      Generality is not, in general, better - we all communicate with different symbols (including different letters and words, different languages and dialects and subtexts and slang) to evoke different aspects of language and communication. Identity is extremely important to communication - I, personally, am communicating my opinion to you, personally. If you want to stick to [what you consider] neutral or impersonal language in whatever aspect, you can. That option hasn't been removed from you. If you want to impose your preference on others, that is to prevent other people from communicating effectively. I don't respect that.
      - fossuser 5y ago
        I'm not dogmatic about it and obviously my position is a lost cause, but I don't think inserting race into everything is better. Race is socially constructed, lines between 'races' dissolve and change over time. Reinforcing our differences in software and communication unnecessarily over arbitrary categorizations and physical characteristics is worse for society (imo). I think people should generally have the freedom to do what they want, but defaults and incentives matter - it's better to choose ones that lead to a better outcome when possible. That's all I'm getting at.
        teachingassist 5y ago
        Race is socially constructed, but skin colour is not - it's a physical attribute. Emojis literally offer people the choice to use "Light Skin Tone", "Medium-Light Skin Tone", "Medium Skin Tone", "Medium-Dark Skin Tone" and "Dark Skin Tone". Those are not racial differentiators.
        fossuser 5y ago
        Yeah you're right of course - and that's the strongest argument in favor of them, but given how modern society operates today where people use skin tone as a (the main?) racial differentiator, the emoji's imply more than that. If it was just hair color or something it would be different. It shouldn't be different (imo) and hopefully we eventually get to a world where they're just physical attributes. I just don't see this kind of thing helping in the mean time.

by hrktb 5y ago

fossuser 5y ago

> “ If you're arguing for getting back to simple outlines of random colors, I'm with you.” Yes that is what I want. I basically agree with everything you said - I just wish we chose generality over specificity.

teachingassist 5y ago
> Yes that is what I want. You have it - use the yellow emoji. If that's not good enough, then commission your own emoji font. Or, don't use emojis/don't use Unicode. And let other people communicate in the way that they want.
- fossuser 5y ago
  I’m not talking about personal use? I do use the neutral colors, I just think inserting identity into something is a worse outcome. Generality would be better. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049269 Or this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049517
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    Generality is not, in general, better - we all communicate with different symbols (including different letters and words, different languages and dialects and subtexts and slang) to evoke different aspects of language and communication. Identity is extremely important to communication - I, personally, am communicating my opinion to you, personally. If you want to stick to [what you consider] neutral or impersonal language in whatever aspect, you can. That option hasn't been removed from you. If you want to impose your preference on others, that is to prevent other people from communicating effectively. I don't respect that.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      I'm not dogmatic about it and obviously my position is a lost cause, but I don't think inserting race into everything is better. Race is socially constructed, lines between 'races' dissolve and change over time. Reinforcing our differences in software and communication unnecessarily over arbitrary categorizations and physical characteristics is worse for society (imo). I think people should generally have the freedom to do what they want, but defaults and incentives matter - it's better to choose ones that lead to a better outcome when possible. That's all I'm getting at.
      - teachingassist 5y ago
        Race is socially constructed, but skin colour is not - it's a physical attribute. Emojis literally offer people the choice to use "Light Skin Tone", "Medium-Light Skin Tone", "Medium Skin Tone", "Medium-Dark Skin Tone" and "Dark Skin Tone". Those are not racial differentiators.
        fossuser 5y ago
        Yeah you're right of course - and that's the strongest argument in favor of them, but given how modern society operates today where people use skin tone as a (the main?) racial differentiator, the emoji's imply more than that. If it was just hair color or something it would be different. It shouldn't be different (imo) and hopefully we eventually get to a world where they're just physical attributes. I just don't see this kind of thing helping in the mean time.