OS X 10.10.3 and iOS 8.3 Beta 2 Updates Introduce New Emoji, Skin Tone Modifiers

[sunking101]

This one is a classic, an issue that doesn't negatively effect one person, yet raises this level of emotion.

I have to go back to the most basic question ... how is anybody harmed if the emoji set is expanded?

And if no one is harmed, how could anybody be against it?

On the face of it, nobody is harmed in the slightest if the emoticon set is expanded, but we can still have an opinion on it. This new set of smileys will cause issues for some, at some point. We now have to think if a smiley is 'suitable' for a particular recipient. It's stupid.
"Hey you sent me a yellow smiley and I'm black. I'm offended that you didn't take the time to select the black smiley" etc.

 

[Tilpots]

Then just don't use them. Nobody is forcing you.

Completely missing the point. That's a poor argument anyway.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Hey you sent me a yellow smiley and I'm black. I'm offended that you didn't take the time to select the black smiley" etc.

Usually an emoticon expresses the emotion of the sender.

Hence the reason for a more diverse set.

Completely missing the point. That's a poor argument anyway.

Can you clarify your point then?

 

[aerok]

Completely missing the point. That's a poor argument anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you disagree with this because of the wedgethis would create between the races. It's emoticons, if someone gets angry at you over the color of a smiley... no comment.

 

[Renzatic]

how is anybody harmed if the emoji set is expanded?

And if no one is harmed, how could anybody be against it?

This is exactly what I think of the issue. All it does is allow for a bit more personal representation in text conversations on the internet. Nothing more. It's not exclusive in any way, since the new set covers the entire spectrum of brown people generally come in.

...so why get up in arms over it?

 

[Tilpots]

Can you clarify your point then?

Emoji's need to be diverse only for the expressions they represent, not the people they come from. Feelings should be universal, not based on a persons skin color. A happy face is happy. Why does it need to be a black happy face or a white happy face? Yellow is neutral and should convey happy without needing a race.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you disagree with this because of the wedgethis would create between the races. It's emoticons, if someone gets angry at you over the color of a smiley... no comment.

The whole color the emoji thing is happening becUse people were angry. So...

 

[Digital Skunk]

...so why get up in arms over it?

Because it's inclusive.

That's really the only reason I can see this being a problem for some.

Sadly, it's the same reason folks don't want a lot of people to have a lot of things.

Emoji's need to be diverse only for the expressions they represent, not the people they come from. Feelings should be universal, not based on a persons skin color. A happy face is happy. Why does it need to be a black happy face or a white happy face? Yellow is neutral and should convey happy without needing a race.

I can agree with that.

Now why does having them create an issue or problem?

 

[Renzatic]

We now have to think if a smiley is 'suitable' for a particular recipient. It's stupid.
"Hey you sent me a yellow smiley and I'm black. I'm offended that you didn't take the time to select the black smiley" etc.

I won't say this won't ever happen, but it'll be such a rare occurrence that it practically only exists in the realms of the hypothetical.

 

[sunking101]

Usually an emoticon expresses the emotion of the sender.

Hence the reason for a more diverse set.
/QUOTE]

Why not use the universal set of 'classic' yellow smileys then?
I'm not bright yellow, and I doubt that you are either, so how could either of us be offended by using them? Would you feel excluded if your skin tone wasn't represented by the smiley? I wouldn't, but perhaps that's just me.

 

[Happybunny]

It's quite funny to see so called grownups fighting over Emoji's.

I asked by granddaugther, she looked at the selection and turned her nose up, and said thats the problem there's no Hello Kitty.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I won't say this won't ever happen, but it'll be such a rare occurrence that it practically only exists in the realms of the hypothetical.

It'll never happen.

Why not use the universal set of 'classic' yellow smileys then? I'm not bright yellow, and I doubt that you are either, so how could either of us be offended by using them? Would you feel excluded if your skin tone wasn't represented by the smiley? I wouldn't, but perhaps that's just me.

True but that doesn't really mean there's a genuine problem with the option for a more diverse set.

I still punch in the characters by hand myself, and I couldn't care any less about having black or white or asian or gay or straight emoji.

But I don't care if they're present either.

 

[Renzatic]

Sadly, it's the same reason folks don't want a lot of people to have a lot of things.

I can at least partially agree with that.

Though to get back to Sunking's argument that it could be construed as potentially offensive if you, say, send a black guy a white emoji, it won't. I looked at the set, and realized that you tailor the emoji set to your own preferences. If you're white, you'll probably be using the white set. If you're black, the black set. If I get a black smiley face, I'm probably talking to a black person. I won't assume much from it either way.

And if you have a white person using black emojis, or vice versa...who cares? I think moreso than demanding neutrality, we, as a society, need to grow up a bit.

 

[sunking101]

I can at least partially agree with that.

Though to get back to Sunking's argument that it could be construed as potentially offensive if you, say, send a black guy a white emoji, it won't. I looked at the set, and realized that you tailor the emoji set to your own preferences. If you're white, you'll probably be using the white set. If you're black, the black set. If I get a black smiley face, I'm probably talking to a black person. I won't assume much from it either way.

And if you have a white person using black emojis, or vice versa...who cares? I think moreso than demanding neutrality, we, as a society, need to grow up a bit.

If that's the case, that you can tailor the set to your own preferences, then fair enough. I'll still just use the basic yellow smileys like I've always done.

 

[Tilpots]

I can agree with that.

Now why does having them create an issue or problem?

I just don't think adding race to every single subject is helpful or constructive. I wish those who felt the emojis needed to change would have advocated for unity and not diversity. Their message would've been much more in line with their perceived desires, which I see as equality. Now they've taken an issue as benign as a smiley face and made it a polarizing debate. Who does that help?

 

[Digital Skunk]

I think moreso than demanding neutrality, we, as a society, need to grow up a bit.

Agreed.

Their message would've been much more in line with their perceived desires, which I see as equality. Now they've taken an issue as benign as a smiley face and made it a polarizing debate. Who does that help?

I don't think their message was ever a perceived consensus to establish a neutral race/gender/dogma/worldview. Just a desire to have equal representation.

 

[shandyman]

What is the point in this? Is this something people actually want?

Some people must have requested it. It's all come from Unicode, not Apple. Apple are just enabling support for the new standard.

 

[Badagri]

[Mod Note]

The thread is open. Please keep the discussion on the thread topic and be nice to one another.

Somehow I thought of this. Plus it is apparently NYPD training.

 

[tennisproha]

If you ask me people are far too quick to call "hater" and "troll" etc on t'intermawebs. I'll probably get called such for this.

Dont be a hater man.

 

[samiwas]

If that's the case, that you can tailor the set to your own preferences, then fair enough. I'll still just use the basic yellow smileys like I've always done.

Good for you. And those who wanted to have a set of emojis that represent themselves can use those. And it will literally have zero effect on your life.

I just don't think adding race to every single subject is helpful or constructive. I wish those who felt the emojis needed to change would have advocated for unity and not diversity. Their message would've been much more in line with their perceived desires, which I see as equality. Now they've taken an issue as benign as a smiley face and made it a polarizing debate. Who does that help?

I think the only people creating a polarizing debate, for pretty apparent reasons, are the ones who seem to be against having the options.

I honestly cannot understand how someone can be against having options for other people, which do not affect themselves at all, in any way, whatsoever. Well, you know, beyond the obvious reasons.

One thing I can guarantee you, is that if all of the skin-tone emojis were originally dark-skinned, you'd see a whole lot of call for changes.

 

[GoldenJoe]

Is anyone else offended that there is no gay emoji?

Cuz apparently Tim Cook is.

 

[redheeler]

I can't possibly be the only one wondering why there still isn't a Public Beta of 10.10.3 this late after the developer release.

----------

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Serious?

Well, now you can read this thread and see why.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I'll still just use the basic yellow smileys like I've always done.

As will I the few times that I actually use them.

 

[aerok]

Is anyone else offended that there is no gay emoji?

Cuz apparently Tim Cook is.

Please enlighten me, how would you portray a gay man/woman in emoji?

And where does it say that Tim is offended with the lack of gay emoji?

 

[Heltik]

Good for you. And those who wanted to have a set of emojis that represent themselves can use those. And it will literally have zero effect on your life.



I think the only people creating a polarizing debate, for pretty apparent reasons, are the ones who seem to be against having the options.

I honestly cannot understand how someone can be against having options for other people, which do not affect themselves at all, in any way, whatsoever. Well, you know, beyond the obvious reasons.

One thing I can guarantee you, is that if all of the skin-tone emojis were originally dark-skinned, you'd see a whole lot of call for changes.

I think the issue for many is the issue of why we buy Apple products. Sir Jonathan Ive can describe this better than me:

"Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that's a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That's not simple.
"The quest for simplicity has to pervade every part of the process. It really is fundamental."

What Apple seems to be doing here is reducing simplicity and adding clutter when they didn't need to. They are called Emoticons, not RacialEmoticons. Having a black face or a white face does not convey the emotion any better. It's getting away from design purity and simplicity under a false banner of inclusion and racial equality.

 

[Don't panic]

i think it would have been better if all emoticons (emoji, whatever) would have been left race-neutral.

however, once the move to have one race stereotype included, it makes perfect sense to extend it to be more inclusive.

how people use them or perceive them is a different issue, and has to do with the people themselves, not with the option provided