Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process

[James Kass wrote:]
> Let's not be too harsh on the ESC. The set of in-line pictures which
> some might use to adorn text is open-ended. The ESC has to deal with
> the really tough questions every day. Like, is there a semantic
> difference between PICTURE OF SQUIRREL vs. PICTURE OF CHIPMUNK or
> BASEBALL vs. SOFTBALL or AUSTALOPITHECINE RIDING THREE-LEGGED HORSE
> vs. AUSTALOPITHECINE WITH MOHAWK RIDING THREE-LEGGED HORSE, and so
> forth. I wouldn't be able to make such difficult decisions without
> flipping a coin, so I'd doff my hat to the ESC if I wore one.

There is no semantic difference between a softball and a baseball. They are
literally the same object, just in slightly different sizes. There isn’t a
semantic difference between a squirrel and a chipmunk either (mainly
because they don’t represent anything beyond their own identities just like
the majority of modern emoji inventions), but at the very least they are
*different things*.

Not to mention that the softball was added – by the ESC’s very own
admission – for the sole and only purpose of “improving gender
representation”, and anyone who has heard of my name in the context of
Unicode before can tell you what a massive hypocrisy that is. As I said,
there is no system. The ESC only approves emoji submissions if they
personally like them, or to make themselves look vaguely more progressive
and open-minded than they really are, but not *too* open-minded, you see,
because then we would have to put actual, proper thought into the issues
we’re dealing with.

Mark Davis hates me already for rightfully calling out his many
shortcomings, so I might as well say it like it is and alienate the rest of
the ESC as well. I have no doubt that many ESC members are competent enough
for their job; the point is that, collectively, the ESC is not.
Received on Sat Aug 11 2018 - 06:58:32 CDT