Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X 10.10.3 and iOS 8.3 Beta 2 Updates Introduce New Emoji, Skin Tone Modifiers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess it comes down to what you want to convey. Whilst I may have a genuine need for alternative characters in communication, I see no need to convey the colour of my skin in a comment in which I'm expressing emotion, but to each their own. I can see your rationale, even if I don't agree with the raison d'être (see what I did there) for your philosophical stance.
Hmmm....
Oh, but I believe his analogy was spot on. You use some features, but not this particular feature, so you see no reason for the other feature set to be expanded. He doesn't like tattoos, so he doesn't see a reason for other people to get tattoos.
How is that not valid?
Yeah, I don't even know what you're trying to say.
What's funny is the people that are arguing against these being included have weak points. A lot are whinging that Apple have spent all their time and money on doing this (a deliberate exaggeration, since those people are exaggerating in the first place), when it's only a fraction of the work being done. This expansion was set by Unicode. Apple have merely provided support for the new Unicode standard, which Google and others will also do shortly. The people complaining about emojis, calling them pointless, wouldn't like it if something they used or liked got called pointless, so pure double standards there. If you don't like emojis, you don't have to use them. I, personally, don't see the point of Game Center (for example), but I don't campaign for it to be abolished. I know that some people use it, I don't, so I just ignore it. Then again, I never learn that common sense and logic is not used on this forum....
Game Center is actually necessary for some folk though. I don't use it either but you can't compare apples with oranges.
BTW, where's the wheelchair smiley? That's discrimination against disabled people...
A lack of something doesn't automatically assume a direct act of discrimination.
So in that case, why bother with the different skin tones?
I would feel it better to exclude ALL races and minority groups in favour of a basic set of cartoon smileys, in a colour like orange if yellow is too discriminatory for some folk.
Because why not? The only thing controversial about the multiethnic emoji are the people making it so.
OS X 10.10.3 and iOS 8.3 Beta 2 Updates Introduce New Emoji, Skin Tone Modifiers
It's not necessary at all. It's a nice to have for those people. Just like the emojis are a nice to have for other people.
If enough people demand it, I'm sure it would happen. It's not Apple's decision though, it's Unicode. That's the other thing people are missing. As I pointed out, Google, etc are also working on their support, with the same shades. The only reason Apple are being focussed on, is because their beta is publicly seen. I wonder what the stories would have been if Androids ones had been seen first...
----------
Exactly this. This would be a non issue if it weren't for the daft people kicking up a stink for no real valid reason.
----------
They added a Yellow tone to the people ones, to match the main ones, but those have also had people whinging. So they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Unicode were the ones that included the additional people that were Caucasian looking back in the day, yet Apple get the flack for it.
Unicode decided to add the skin tones, Apple, etc just adding support for what Unicode made as a standard. Unicode could have gone the other way, but didn't.
It's not necessary at all. It's a nice to have for those people. Just like the emojis are a nice to have for other people.
If enough people demand it, I'm sure it would happen. It's not Apple's decision though, it's Unicode. That's the other thing people are missing. As I pointed out, Google, etc are also working on their support, with the same shades. The only reason Apple are being focussed on, is because their beta is publicly seen. I wonder what the stories would have been if Androids ones had been seen first...
----------
Exactly this. This would be a non issue if it weren't for the daft people kicking up a stink for no real valid reason.
----------
They added a Yellow tone to the people ones, to match the main ones, but those have also had people whinging. So they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Unicode were the ones that included the additional people that were Caucasian looking back in the day, yet Apple get the flack for it.
Unicode decided to add the skin tones, Apple, etc just adding support for what Unicode made as a standard. Unicode could have gone the other way, but didn't.
Yeah, I accept that this isn't Apple's doing. We can still moan about it though.
While I agree with you, I think it's a form of tribalism, which while not "valid" it is a very strong driving force. Ideally, people are able to use their reasoning and compassion so they are not driven by it.
Ideally.
----------
Seems like people have forgotten how to not sweat about the small stuff.
I'm over it now# but do find it a bit pathetic if I'm honest. We don't need skin-toned smileys, white included. Plain old yellow will do just fine. We should keep it simple and for goodness sake keep race issues out of things as much as humanly possible.
It is still simple, you can just easily ignore it if you want. It's not part of the startup wizard.
Don't think anyone has stated that there shouldn't be emojis - irrespective of personal usage - merely that a device to represent one's emotions should not be attached to race.
Let's abstract this slightly to a common situation. How weird would the folks at Apple support find it, if when they said "How are you today", people started answering, "Good thanks, I'm black and I'm smiling" or "Good thanks, white man here, tongue sticking out"?
How would that provide any benefit to the customer service rep at all? Are they going to provide a different service based upon racial stereotypes? Or are they just going to think... Mmmmm Okaaaaaay.
----------
That would be discriminatory against those folks in the tanning salon.
I would suggest that the best response is the same advice I'd give regarding emojis ... if it means something to you, then respond to it, and if it doesn't mean anything to you, then ignore it.
Yeah well I read it the first time and saw the entire thread that you just quoted again. So I didn't "cherry pick" anything and it was your quote. So I will take that as a "no i cant" as your real answer and leave it at that. Thanks.
I didn't say I was against the expansion, I said nothing to do with the expansion. I said I don't get what emojis are for. You're equating two completely separate positions.
I'm trying to say that somebody who suggests that all people who don't get the point of emojis are "boring business stiffs who only write in standard language, somehow thinking it makes them elite" is judgmental and defensive. And absurd.
A non-judgmental and defensive response would be "they're useful for ...". It's not hard to be nice.
I get that you could have inferred (incorrectly) from my original statement that I was being judgmental myself, but that's just that: an inference, there was no actual name calling or anything like that (which there was in the response), and you shouldn't assume when reading online that your inferences are correct and therefore get all judgmental and defensive about it.
Last edited:
I think you have the order of the posts confused. I said a, somebody else said b, to which I responded with c. You can't then use c as justification for b.
Considering that were arguing over emoticons ... whatever you say is right. Even if it's wrong. It doesn't matter.