No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
The yellow should be the only one. I find it absolutely idiotic that they needed to include all different skin colors. I think that's similar to my native language (Finnish) not having gender specific pronouns (hän = he/she) and then someone wanting to come up with ones. That's "fixing" a problem that didn't even exist in the first place.
Maybe you'd feel differently if your country wasn't 90+% homogeneous with a light skin tone
There are no yellow skinned people where I live
It's still pretty light if we're considering the array of skin tones that are throughout humanity. If you weren't Finnish, but instead African or Indian or South American for example, maybe you wouldn't feel that yellow was representative of you and your people. Saying yellow is fine for everyone because you feel it's fine isn't taking into account the other billions of opinions in the world.
I quess we need a billion more variations of those emojis then. Lets keep paying more attention to the skin color of people. That seems like a great idea.
Something people living in almost entirely racially homogenous countries don't often get is that you can't help the problem of racism by trying to ignore it. The only way to correctly address racism is to realize that it exists, that people do have biases based on race & ethnicity, that there are groups that are underrepresented, and to actively work to provide more ways for people to represent themselves and their identity. The fact of the matter is that more representation, even in seemingly minor ways like more emojis which they can identify with more, helps normally underrepresented people feel more comfortable with themselves and their identity and helps alleviate societal pressures for them to mask their identity/culture. Even small changes play a part.
Acting "colorblind" just makes the problem of racism worse, as it means you'd be acting blind to obvious biases based on race/ethnicity... including people who are part of a certain in-group (or multiple in-groups) being overrepresented and people of an out-group being underrepresented or represented poorly/highly stereotypically. There is no morally just approach to discrimination which attempts to pay no attention to the traits being discriminated against.
It's pride month, this is like one of the most relevant times of year to this... It may be easier to see from that point of view instead – what purpose does queer pride exist even in places where queer people are "legal"? Why are there pride flags and events and characters and such to represent LGBT people? A similar answer may be applicable to racial minorities.
I was raised in the part of the United States with likely the most racist/racially tense history in the nation, possibly one of the most in modern history (it was the heart of the Confederacy after all, one of the most significant historical events of our nation was burning down half the state and presenting my city to the president as a Christmas gift, I'm sure it'd make a top 10 list of the big racism or something), a place that still has extremely bad problems with racial discrimination, and I used to think the "colorblind" approach and avoiding race as much as possible was the solution to racism, but I've realized over time that this approach is a tool that racism uses to thrive – it makes people refuse to acknowledge the racism in the first place, and it causes people to be unable to find out what racism really means and how many minor things can have major affects on minority groups. It's a very common approach by (often conservative/"libertarian") people here who haven't subscribed to the whole calling people racial slurs and committing hate crimes, but still can't face the fact that racism is alive, everywhere around us, and that they're likely participating in it or propogating it regularly despite not actively trying to be racist.
Basically... let them have their variously skin-colored emojis
Yeah you don't get it and never will, that's a shame
Ad hominem is not an argument to the contrary
No, but having a blindfold on doesn't suddenly make it okay to punch someone
I feel this is like saying the Simpsons, and most of Springfield, aren't supposed to be white because their skin is yellow.
It's no surprise the default emoji color is so close to white skin, and it's no surprise that some people feel a lack of representation by this.
But emoji's are not derived from the Simpsons. They're derived from the yellow smiley face ideogram that originated in the 1960s, it was designed by the artist Harvey Ball.
It's yellow, not because it's supposed to represent whiteness, but because the company colors of the State Mutual Life Assurance Company it was designed for were yellow and black, and because it feels sunny, bright and positive. It's an anthropomorphized representation of the Sun, and does not represent a human with a specific skin color.
I neither said nor implied they were.
My point is that everyone, who is being honest at least, interprets the Simpsons as being white. Do you think they're white?
Groeing chose yellow because it jumps out, but the characters are all supposed to be white. He could have chosen other colors that pop as well, but settled on yellow, for white people.
As I said, it's no surprise the default emoji is closest to white skin. Even if that association comes from the Simpsons, emojis didn't come out until decades after the Simpsons became a cultural mainstay.
Yes, from the context it's crystal clear that they're white, they could be purple or green and they'd still be "white", but I think it's not relevant in a discussion about emojis.
My point is that yellow smiley faces have been a cultural mainstay independent of the Simpsons, and that you grossly overestimate the worldwide cultural impact of the Simpsons. Most of the non-US world didn't even get the Simpsons on TV until the mid 1990s, while smiley face t-shirts and pins were all the rage in the late 1980s and 1990s. Source: I wore them myself when I was a kid, and from your comment I'm guessing you weren't born yet.
And decades? The Simpsons started in 1989, while the first instant messengers already had smiley face emoticons in the mid 90s.
If we are talking about "why are there different skin tone emojis" it's absolutely relevant to point out examples of how the alleged "neutral" emoji color is typically interpreted as a white skin tone.
The Simpsons came out in 88. You are saying most of the world got the Simpsons about half a decade later. I would say this proves the exact opposite of your point and that it is a huge world cultural phenomena. I'm shocked that I'm having the defend the Simpsons as one of the most important and impactful TV shows of all time.
Emoticon != emoji. Characters don't have skin tone colors. The first emojis didn't come out until 1999. It wasn't until mid 2000s when they gained popularity world wide, and it wasn't until 2010 that they were accepted into unicode. It may be a fair point to claim that decades is too long, but it's at least a decade.
I was born in 1978. I remember the smiley face pins being a quick passing fad, not some mainstay. Certainly not even remotely on the level of the Simpsons. But regardless of how popular they are, it doesn't detract from my point: the yellow is close to white and interpreted as white. It might even further drive home my point because (although it's a bit circular here) probably part of the reason it gained such widespread financial success is because of it's proximity to whiteness.
My point is, I didn't even hear about the Simpsons until I was in Uni, which puts it around 1995-ish, but I sure knew what a yellow smiley was.
I meant smileys really, because that's what they were initially called. Emojis is a more recent retroactive rebranding/appropriation of smileys by Apple when they launched the iphone.
Anyway ICQ had yellow smiley faces 1996-ish. AIM had them 1997-ish. Yahoo!Pager, later Yahoo!Messenger, had yellow smileys in 1998. And MSN definitely had them in 1999.
And then there's friggin minesweeper that had a yellow smiley face all the way back in 1992:
I guess they all watched too much Simpsons?
I believe emoji was a Japanese creation, not a Apple creation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoji
My reference to the Simpsons has nothing to do with claiming this is where yellow emojis came from. My reference to the Simpsons is to point out that yellow skin tone is clearly adjacent to whiteness and this was well established before emojis caught widespread support in the mid/late aughts.
The fact that others also used yellow emojis financially successfully does not contradict the claim that it's clearly adjacent to whiteness. If anything, it reinforces the claim.
Not it was not and it still isn't. The reason we think of the Simpsons as white is because the context makes it crystal clear that they're a typical white suburban family, not because of their color. If Matt Groening had made Simpsons green, purple or blue we'd still think of them as white, and at the same time smileys and later emojis would still be yellow. At best there is some parallel evolution here in the sense that both Matt Groening and Harvey Ball both chose yellow for the same reason: because it is perceived as a bright happy color.
If you then associate yellowness exclusively with whiteness that's purely a you thing, and honestly I find it pretty fucked up to see racial connotations like this in the most innocent things. Stop projecting your own prejudices.
My argument is that bright yellow smileys have their own cultural lineage dating back to 1963, and it has nothing to do with skin color or race. Using these yellow smileys to express emotion in computer programs has been a thing since at least the mid nineties, not the mid/late aughts as you claim. The reason that it only appeared in the mid nineties and not earlier is technological and cultural. It has to do with the developing graphical and networking capabilities of computers around that time, and because smileys were popular in other aspects of culture around the same time. It has nothing to do with The Simpsons or other supposedly white cartoon characters.
It is. Everyone, if they are being honest, knows that Springfield is mostly white. Everyone knows that when a famous white person makes a cameo, and is white, they are yellow and no one is confused as to who it is, or if they are trying to make some racially ambiguous version of that famous person. It's not just me: everyone gets it.
If they had given them brown skin, but changed nothing else, would you still be saying it's "crystal clear that they’re a typical white suburban family"? Of course not. Let's not be absurd here. Obviously the choice of skin color plays a role in that interpretation.
The funny thing is, I didn't. It was never a thought that cross my mind. You know why? Because I'm white and it represents me. It wasn't until I saw people start using the non-white ones that I started to realize my privilege in emojis. It wasn't until I had a discussion about race and the Simpsons yellow did I realize how white that yellow actually is.
Yeah, but at no point have you established that this this history is non-white, or that the success wasn't the result of being white-adjacent. You just say that because they choose yellow for non-racial reasons, well then yellow can't be seen as white. But there is a logical leap here. I'll just come back to my point that their success might even have to do with being white-adjacent.
You keep using that word as if it will somehow transform the color yellow into white and make your argument for you. It won't happen. It's yellow, and not just pale yellow but an extremely saturated and bright version of yellow. It is clearly not a natural skin tone of any race unless that person is very ill.
If you look at a white person's skin tone, it's not a saturated color and the hue is certainly not yellow. If anything, it's pink. How you can arrive at "yellow = white-adjacent" just boggles my mind. There are literally billions of people on this planet who are not white and whose skin tone is closer to the yellow of a smiley face. You can call any color with sufficient luminosity white adjacent then. Bright blue: white-adjacent. Bright red: white-adjacent. Bright green: white-adjacent. Wee look at all those white-adjacent colors:
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because I find you truly insufferable and I no longer want to spend my energy on it. If I can give you one piece of life advice: go find something worthwhile to get up in arms about.
I'm using it because it describes what I mean. It's the same reason they chose it for the Simpsons: it's close enough to being white so there is no confusion as to what race they are. (Also, don't think it isn't glaringly obvious that you avoided my question)
It was a good conversation until this point, it's sad that when backed into a corner you were unnecessarily an asshole about it.
But the funniest part about this is that it was the top level comment, that I responded to, that was "up in arms" about there being multiple skin tone colors. Even going so far as to call it "idiotic." I just pointed out that I don't believe it is as neutral as they were making it out to be, and explained why some non-white people might not feel represented by it. You then jumped in to attack me based by falsely claiming I said it was based off of the Simpsons.
If anyone is "up in arms" about shit here, it's you and the top level commentor, not me.
interestingly, according to one study im half-remembering, people from countries with an ethnic majority see the Simpsons as part of their ethnicity. ie Asian people perceive The Simpsons as Asian.
I'd be curious to see that. I also find it hard to believe because every famous white person who makes a cameo on the show is also yellow.
Why would someone want to add gendered pronouns to a language
For a same reason they want to add emojis with different color skins? Stupidity, thoughtlessnes and virtue signaling.
For adding specificity to lamguage. If you are talking about several people, the disambiguation can be handy.
We could have add pronouns that distinguish by size, or age, etc.
The really stupid feature of most indo-european is the arbitrary gendering of most nouns.
I like how Japanese does it, just call people by names and titles instead. 2nd person and 3rd pronouns exist but are only rarely used.
I really don’t care what colours of emojis exist. Use them or don’t use them, it’s not that deep.
Actually spending time thinking about coloured emojis is a little strange to me. If someone wants to use a black one, white one, or yellow one just let it be.
You sound like the kind of people that would have proclaimed it’s idiotic to give women rights, or let them vote, or give LGBTQ+ people rights of marriage or whatever. Change is inevitable and just because something has no bearing on your life doesn’t mean it has no bearing on anybodies life.
You're insane.
Care to expand on that?