Computers are powerful. We have no shortage of computer programmers. Given all the complexity in systems just to stay current and functional, a bit of extra work for emojis is a small price to pay.
>And just repeating that yellow is abstract and inclusive doesn't address the fact that it's objectively far closer to representing people of lighter complexion than those with significantly darker complexion.
They also represent those of thinner complexion. Overwhelmingly able-bodied too. Not to mention, it was always going to be the case since facial features are going to be dark tones and as such, it's clearer to represent them on a clear skin. This was always a nonsensical, losing game. Always has been.
I don't feel represented on the basis of branding personal expression with an identification of race as a default, the idea is frankly abhorrent to me. Why am I being excluded?
Is anyone forcing you to use a default? How are you excluded because other people can make different choices?
Maybe being disgusted by others choices for casual conversation is a personal matter. Something you could address with software to disregard whatever is so offensive, or a support group, or inward reflection.
Why don't you levy this argument against yourself?
>How are you excluded because other people can make different choices?
Because I cannot. By your own points, I can't express myself in a race-neutral way anymore.
>Maybe being disgusted by others choices for casual conversation is a personal matter. Something you could address with software to disregard whatever is so offensive, or a support group, or inward reflection.
This is, again, better levied against your position.
> Why don't you levy this argument against yourself?
How? I don't feel forced by others having options or even the existence of a default.
>> Maybe being disgusted by others choices...
> This is, again, better levied against your position.
I'm not the one whose disgusted or even bothered. Not even by your opinion. (I just don't share it.)
>> How are you excluded because other people can make different choices?
> Because I cannot. By your own points, I can't express myself in a race-neutral way anymore.
Thanks for clarifying. IMO you can just accept the defaults, whatever their tone/complexion, and move on. I don't think anyone is bothered by yellow being an imperfect attempt at race neutrality, so long as there are options for folks to pick whatever they're comfortable with.
The sheer length of the discussion suggests otherwise.
Debate doesn't mean people are out to get you.
I disagree that this is objective at all.
But more importantly, I disagree that the smiley face is intended to be "representative" at all in the first place.
When USENET users typed ":)", do you suppose they cared about the text being black-on-white (or white-on-black, or green-on-black, or...) when their lips are actually red and their eyes might be any number of colours? No; the entire point was that you could convey "the foregoing is intended in a lighthearted way" in two bytes, and not spend many more bytes conveying information about your appearance (which you were more likely than not deliberately trying to conceal).
If for some reason the systems I used spontaneously changed so that the smiley-face emoji had a white skin tone that happened to match my own very well, and didn't offer any options to change that, I would not for a moment register any kind of feeling of "inclusion" or "representation". I would not care in the slightest about "huh, that looks like me". If I noticed at all, I would more likely be freaked out (why does the developer of this software know what I look like?).
Just like how, in the real world where there weren't options and the skin tone was that weird dark yellow, it never once occurred to me to complain, or feel insecure, about it not looking like me; nor did it occur to me to think about whether or not it was intended to look like me, or like a generic white person, or a generic person of any other race. These were just Not Issues Taking Up Mental Space until the Fitzpatrick modifiers were added to Unicode.
Also just like how, when I used the :mrgreen: emoji on ancient phpBB message boards (actually, the Linux Mint forums allow me to do this again!), I didn't think "but nobody is actually green", or "I wonder what race of person this is intended to be 'coded' as", or "if the yellow colour is actually 'white' then this green must be... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MvsgEDKCgM".
I thought "oh, how whimsical".
And I can't come up with a mental justification for why people who aren't white should feel any differently about that sort of thing, that I could take at all seriously.
Why must there be justification? How people feel is subjective, no one has to fully understand or empathize in every sense for every feeling. All that said, having an option for people who feel differently isn't much of a burden, so why sweat it?
The steelman argument would be that we have provided a way for folks who felt excluded to now feel more represented.
And just repeating that yellow is abstract and inclusive doesn't address the fact that it's objectively far closer to representing people of lighter complexion than those with significantly darker complexion. The latter group has suffered centuries of oppression and exclusion, often based solely on their appearance, so it's an issue that impacts them differently.
Even "The Simpsons" has introduced characters with darker complexions alongside their yellow toned cast.