SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Apple released iOS 13.2 earlier today, and the update includes 398 new emoji. There's a bunch of brand-new ones (I love the otter) as well as emoji to represent people with disabilities, gender-neutral emoji (following in Google's footsteps), and a new way to select the skin colors of each individual in the holding hands emoji.
The new batch of emojis also help to normalize menstruation:
For too long, those of us with periods and clitorises have been brutally silenced from talking about our cramps and orgasms by Emoji's lack of yonic and vagina-related emojis. While we gab and gossip freely with eggplant dicks, the best digital icon we currently have to talk about periods and vaginas are the taco (no shade to tacos, it just sounds like a joke a 13-year-old boy would make), and the bloody syringe, which feels unnecessarily gruesome (we're trying to teach kids that periods aren't scary).
This dark time has come to an end. Apple has released iOS 13.2, and the update includes 398 new emoji, including a gorgeous menstrual-red blood drop. [...] The collection also includes a luscious, dignified and highly yonic oyster emoji, replete with a pearly clit, for all your sexting and storytelling needs.
Also at Emojipedia and SFGATE.
Previously: Unicode Consortium Adding 230 New Emojis in Emoji 12.0
(Score: 3, Interesting) by stretch611 on Thursday October 31 2019, @09:40PM (2 children)
Actually I agree.
Many of these "inclusive" things just separate people into smaller and smaller groups. To be inclusive of other people is to include them in a larger group without needing to point out their differences.
Would someone prefer to be referred to as "Fred, the disabled guy down the street" or "Fred the man down the street."? Or, similarly, "Troy, the gay waiter at the restaurant" or "Troy, the waiter at the restaurant." IMHO, people would rather be known for who they are and not defined by a description that puts them into a minority.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @10:12PM (1 child)
There's being general but still phobic internally - which really is just being pretentious and still being influenced by our prejudices in little ways, but they stack up to be significant for those on the receiving end.
Or there being general but genuinely so. However to get there lets start with being explicit so that everyone can get comfortable with it and stop hiding their inner devil. That's the idea with these explicitness.
Also for kids, they tend to take taboo and make it cruelty out of it thus propagating the vicious cycle - making it an openly used/talked about thing removes that taboo stigma and helps break that.
As a minority my whole life, I can tell you there's a difference. Often time we can sense when folks are just hiding behind the facade of modern courtesy but is really one prejudicial prick - and it shows in all their actions.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Friday November 01 2019, @01:42AM
I understand what you are saying and agree with it.
There is a difference between describing a person based on their traits and using those traits to derisively talk about someone. It is fine to use a descriptive term.
e.g. if you are attending a group gather of any kind and someone comes up to you and says, "Can you tell me who Mrs Jones is?" and you respond "She is the black woman seated at the table." There is nothing wrong with that. However, if the same person comes up to you and asks "What type of person is Mrs Jones?" and you respond in a sneering tone, "she is one of those blacks" that is obviously not a positive response.
When you use a minority term to accurately describe a person it is fine, when you use minority terms to derisively define people it is never ok. Context matters.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P