This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I know it's not a big issue, I know I should have expected it and I shouldn't let it get to me, but dammit. It's just so clearly reminiscent of the larger movements in ideology. Today I was asked whether we come with the entire family of four or with less to an event and I wanted to post the family-of-four emoji back. I'm usually not a big emoji poster, so I searched and searched and couldn't find it. Well, as it turns out, ALL family emojis were removed earlier this year and replaced with what looks like bathroom signs (and appropriately moved to the signs section as opposed to people emojis). The reason? Simple:
The Family Emojis Are Now Equally Useless For Everyone, And That's A Good Thing.
Direct quote from the author, who was on relevant committees, for some time even vice chair, for this decision:
First, I want to note how destructive this thinking is. A healthy attitude, upon seeing a sad and a happy person, would be to say: We should try to make the sad happier, even if they might not become as happy as the other person. It leads to more overall happiness, and also to more equality, an unalloyed on-net improvement. By their explicit, stated reasoning these committees would rather make the happy person's live miserable until they are exactly as sad as the other person.
And secondly, I can't help but notice how much this thinking is obviously directly descendend from communist/marxist economic thinking, just applied to cultural topics - i.e. cultural marxism. My wife was born and all her family lived in the DDR (soviet east germany). This is exactly what they reported about how life was structured - every time someone had something that wasn't attainable for everyone, you generally should try to hide it, lest someone might report you or otherwise try to make your life difficult. Exception were, as usual, only for special people. For example, my wife's grandfather was a reasonably well-connected and quite competent car technician working for the military intelligence, members of which were generally left alone by the much more well-known civilian intelligence, the Stasi. Among other things, he had access to a car cemetery, and through this he managed to build is own Wartburg, which was a more expensive car he normally wouldn't have access to, from parts of multiple destroyed Wartburgs. The only reason why he could do this was precisely because of his affiliations - otherwise simply having a better-than-usual car was so suspicious and dangerous that it's better not to try - a car after all you can't easily hide.
So life in the east was in large parts structured around seeming humble and normal and, from the perspective of the higher-ups, only giving people things which you're sure you can give it to everyone. Just like these bathroom sign families, buildings were often literally bleak and grey, which was considered good by the authorities since the alternative was inequality. It seems to me at least some portion of the people who make decisions concerning all our lives start again to think like this.
Third, this is often likened or even explicitly called "tall-poppy-syndrome", the attitude of cutting down the above-average successful. But it's actually worse than that: We steer towards a culture that uses the very least successful/happy as the reference, and that strives to drag the average down until it is exactly as unsuccessful/sad as them. It was trivial to include a bunch of skin colors to accommodate most cases, but since accommodating all possible variations was unfeasible, they decided against it, independent of how ever-rare these variations might be.
This is a much, much less idiotic option than trying to support full customisation of the family. They should've done this ages ago across the board rather than introduce skin colors at all.
Honestly, I would say emojis do not belong in Unicode to begin with. It was a mess from the start, and allowing skin color and gender modifiers made it much much more of a mess. This is by far the sanest decision to make.
Yes. Even if you don't like them, the genie's out of the bottle. They're going to exist no matter what any one person or organization does. Given this, surely it's better for them to be as compatible as possible. It's better for the people who like them and I don't see how it leaves the ones who don't any worse off. (Which in an odd sort of way, ties right back into the theme of the OP.)
The way emojis are encoded is very complex, to allow for all the variations without encoding each possible variation as its own character. This leads to bugs and even security issues in everything that needs to display Unicode text.
Even so, wouldn't you rather have one set of bugs and security issues, or at most one per platform, than as many as there are apps (or worse, as many as there are app/platform combinations)?
In that case, the bugs would be in the social media apps/websites, not in the operating system's text rendering routines. That's a much better place for them to be. Websites are very restricted in what they can do, and on mobile platforms so are applications.
It also would never have gotten anywhere near this situation to begin with. In the olden days, forums displayed emoticons by doing replacements on strings like
:)or:smile:. There's really not that much that can go wrong with a system like that. (Often enough these codes still work in fact, but they are now replaced with Unicode rather than an image.)Unicode emojis have two big problems. The first and biggest is the design, they were made to be composable, as the designers foresaw that it would be extended and apparently considered that a good thing. For example, [woman] + [sunglasses] gets you a woman wearing sunglasses. I remember the reaction when the 'pregnant man' emoji came out, but really, what else should [pregnant] + [male modifier] do? That's not crazy, it isn't even trying.
You can have a cutesy couple, [man] + [heart] + [woman]. Or you can have a cutesy gay couple, one of whom is pregnant, and both are wearing sunglasses, [man] + [sunglasses] + [heart] + [pregnant] + [male modifier] + [sunglasses]. They could each additionally have a hairstyle, hair color and skin color defined. At this point it's becoming a design flaw that they didn't include the equivalent of parentheses to formally specify the order of composition (though let's not give them ideas). And we want to put this all in the operating system's text rendering routines. Define them all in fonts! As ligatures! Madness, I tell you.
The only limit is that unofficial combinations don't need to be supported (though you are certainly welcome to try), as long as you can display the component parts in order. For example, an old enough system is going to render [pregnant] + [male modifier] as a pregnant woman and an Ares symbol.
Which brings me to the second problem, the Unicode Consortium. There's a single body that decides this, and it can be lobbied, and is it ever. Everybody wants their pet issue represented, and they've really got no reason to deny anyone, because the design already allows it. In the olden days this wasn't a thing. You try convincing phpBB to add your thing, and MSN, and AOL, and whatever else there used to be.
This is why I liked this decision, because it means sanity won at least once. Consider the alternative, that you could say "cutesy gay couple, one of whom is pregnant, one is black with curly hair and one is white with short red hair, with a bald Asian boy and a white girl with long, straight dark hair". This kind of composition is already allowed, but could've been made mandatory to support, in the dark mirror universe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link