Re: Emoji end goal

From: Rebecca T <>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:56:01 -0400

Sure, and kanji have romanisations but that doesn’t make the latin alphabet
language neutral. And yes, emoji were supposed to be language neutral but
all the implementers made them default to male. I think you have an
*argument* with skin-tone neutrality but I think you’d be hard-pressed to
find any POC who think the Fitzpatrick modifiers were a mistake.

Also, the “what if my skin was blue” argument is a red herring — nobody has
blue skin, so it’s a moot point.
However, if you do find yourself drinking silver, I suggest U+1F922
🤢 Nauseated Face.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, zelpa <> wrote:

> >"all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
> combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally"
> I wasn't aware that bald yellow people were a race, sorry. If anything,
> adding the skintone modifiers has made me feel LESS included, what if I
> don't fit in to one of the 5 categories? What if I drank too much colloidal
> silver and have blue skin? Sure would be nice to be able to express an
> emotion without also expressing my gender and race. What a wacky world
> would that be. And as for the professions? As I've said on the mailing list
> in the past, the current proposal makes it IMPOSSIBLE to display certain
> professions as gender-neutral. Is that really a step forward? Can we not
> just have gender-neutral, race-neutral emoji? Is that really too much to
> ask?
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Leonardo Boiko <>
> wrote:
>> Yes, the end goal of the Unicode Consortium is media attention by way of
>> virtue signaling. For every online article about emoji modifiers, each
>> individual member of the Consortium earns a fifty-Euro bonus from our
>> masters, the global feminist cultural-Marxist Jewish conspiracy, for our
>> support in propagating political correctness and ultimately implementing
>> ONU's One World Government. In fact, the end goal for emoji (as originally
>> planned by Gramsci and Adorno in UAX #1922) is to be the mandatory
>> Newspeak-style writing system of the NWO, so as to brainwash citizens away
>> from scientific truths like race realism or the sociobiology of gender. As
>> soon as WOMAN+ ZWJ+President Hillary finish assassinating the last
>> remaining ASCII reactionaries, full emoji deployment will be in order, and
>> we'll indoctrinate every child to internalize standard Communist dogma such
>> as "all ethnicities deserve equal representation in media" or "all
>> combinations of genders and professions should be considered equally
>> valid". The lead experiments at Tumblr and Instagram were very successful,
>> proving that emoji have great potential as tools of indoctrination.
>> 2016/10/12 10:02 "zelpa" <>:
>>> So what exactly is the end goal for emoji? First we had the fitzpatrick
>>> skin modifiers, now there's the proposal for gendered emoji sequences using
>>> ZWJ. There was even the proposal for the hair colour modifier in TR 53. So
>>> what is the true end goal? Will we one day be able to display our Fallout 4
>>> character with a single emoji and 60 modifiers? And honestly, who is asking
>>> for these additions? Does anybody WANT a hair colour modifier? Seems to me
>>> like the consortium might just be pandering to a few silly requests (by
>>> people who have no actual idea what unicode is) to get media attention.
Received on Wed Oct 12 2016 - 11:56:46 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Oct 12 2016 - 11:56:46 CDT