Morning wood emoji when?
While painting/photos can express multiple, deep emotions, they are unique. The value added by a copy it's none.
Moreover emojis are for 99%+ simple nouns ("hand", "pig", "dog", "smile"). And for thing that are not nouns, you still need to understand that they are logograms, with a "fixed" meaning. Kanjis are not better than Romans - they are just different alphabets.
And if you think about it long enough you will find that there is already a 1-to-1 mapping behind the "emojis" and the words (by definition, the unicode is the mapping of numbers - the code point, to meanings - the name, and to images - the pictogram, so you can have U+1F436 associated to 'DOG FACE' and ) , so they are "informationally dense equals" between each others.
But well, you don't need ice cream cones and airplanes to compensate for loss of body language, unless you routinely pantomime those things.
Instead of selecting an easily compressible format for embedding any small image inline with text, we're trying to force a writing system into a kind of general-purpose icon library.
We could've had a world where carriers and phone manufacturers each had their own "common" images easily entered from some list like now, but still allowing cross-platform transmission without information loss, and enabling users to easily add their own custom images.
Now Unicode is stuck trying to define a finite set of popular words which every platform renders slightly differently, and will always leave something out or offend someone.
I'm more concerned with it being yet another thing activists get upset over when people start "using it wrong."
I just wanted to communicate that I had Chipotle last night.
The story is that a group was pushing for the creation of an emoji.
They wanted underwear with a droplet symbol on it, but Unicode only approved a blood droplet.
Of course it can be used for other things and that's what the quote from that group said, expressing their disappointment.
I'm confused as to why most the comments here seem to outraged about activists trying to own the emoji when that wasn't mentioned at all in the article and sounds ridiculous.
Your comment has almost nothing to do with the actual article. It reads like pure reaction: you don't like feminism, so you don't like this.
Calling blood "the symbol of the period" is overreaching a bit.
Keep in mind that the blood drop was the only thing the Unicode working group accepted. The more explicit symbol was more popular in the UK but rejected by the Unicode folks. If you're uncomfortable with a blood drop emoji being used in this way maybe you should direct your discomfort at the Unicode folks.
And I'd expect this to get used anywhere someone wants to reference "blood" in a cutesy way.
Maybe it'll be used more in context of vampires.
What’s there to say about periods? Seems a bit polite to be discussing periods in normal conversation; about as uncouth as one discussing bowel movements or mucus coloration. Of course there are legitimate reasons to talk about a period, but are those occurrences frequent enough to warrant a dedicated emoji?
I think girls should have the same level of access to education as boys, and currently they don't because girls need access to tampons and pads. Some schools do not provide these. Some schools do provide these but girls need to ask for them. (You can see how normalising talk would help there).
If a school does not provide these products a girl's family has to be able to afford them, and we know that curently in the UK some families feel they can't afford them. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/international-womens-day-...
One of the reasons people feel these products are too expensive is the VAT added to the price. People talk about periods because they're talking about tax reform.
Also, it looks like this is exactly how they got it adopted:
"Then in September 2018, Plan UK teamed up with NHS Blood and Transplant, the U.K. government's blood and organ donations service, and submitted a new proposal for a blood drop emoji. Unicode selected it as an official emoji in February."
I would imagine it being used in a variety of ways to communicate blood. I imagine some might not make people feel positive about it's use. That's language for you!
And the unnamed person - you can easily find in the article as a tweet. But it wasn't important to name the person because my intention was to draw attention to the attitude behind the words, which I feel is more important than the particular person behind that tweet. No point in muddying the waters.
I think everyone deserves an equal stab at life. Nobody should be discriminated against for their beliefs or what's in their trousers... But the methods used by some to reach that end are appalling.
Equality isn't accomplished by publicly shaming everyone for every little social infraction. It deliberately excludes the people you need to improve to achieve equality. That turns your cause into a circlejerk and ultimately hurts those who you're trying to represent.
But that's what politics is these days.
Red Vs Blue. Us Vs Them.
Edit: I've witnessed the score of most of these comments fluctuate wildly. It's a shame that inclusivity has to be so divisive.
That might be good for you, but each rational being we lose in the fight against extremism weakens our overall chances of escaping this madness within our lifetimes.
If someone tells me I shouldn't be participating in a discussion about womens' or transgender rights because I'm a cis white male, walking away from the discussion doesn't do anything. It's like quitting your job after you've already been fired. I feel compelled to impress upon people that I will not be silenced based on the color of my skin or my sexuality, that "reverse racism" really doesn't exist because it's still just called racism.
It's incredibly frustrating and fills me with anxiety, and was a huge component of why I left Facebook and other social media...
One of the final straws was in a thread about domestic abuse. Someone asked a question of how false rape charges could possibly ruin a man's life, because it seemed impossible to them that there could be lasting consequences for false rape accusations.
I shared a story about my own childhood abuse as well as the time I was physically assaulted by a sexual partner, which led to a large portion of my friends turning against me in the belief that I had hurt someone. My life was majorly affected in a negative way by this person's assault and subsequent defamation of my character. It could have been even worse as multiple people encouraged her to go to the police, but I made it clear to her I would fight tooth and nail to expose her and get her jail time for a false accusation.
I was then bombarded with hundreds of people tagging in from various "support groups" calling me a liar, saying I probably deserved it, that it probably wasn't as bad as I said, that I probably assaulted her first, declaring that I am likely to be a future rapist solely on the fact that I'm a cis white male (really wish I was making that up) etc etc. Literally all of the victim-blaming behavior that people complain is the bane of inclusion and understanding... came out in waves. Eventually I was banned from the thread. I felt ashamed for absolutely no reason at all. These people had successfully shamed and invalidated me for being a victim, based on the color of my skin, gender and orientation. I lost several real-life friends over that incident as well, and it wasn't long after that my Facebook was gone for good.
It'd be great if our humanity allowed us to accept criticism and contradiction at face value, but that is demonstrably not the case.
I don't know a way around this.
Ironically, aren't you "virtue signaling" right now about how you're sincere enough to be able to look down on people who do it?
Personally, I see a problem less with signals and more with how people make them and respond to them. Aforementioned attempt to appropriate a generic symbol for specific movement is an example of hostile behaviour. Sane people would roll their eyes and carry on with their days, but on the Internet, it starts to become dangerous to let this nonsense pass unchallenged, as then you might find yourself on the business end of Twitter pitchforks after saying something you're unaware that some activist group apparently has dibs on.
No. I’m just making an observation about a supposed movement’s true motives. I am in no way trying to appear superior or “better” (more virtuous) as a result of it.
Using a definition of inclusivity here without a consideration for power dynamics between the parties involved is totally uncharitable: as you've observed in your comment, there is no barrier to actually denying "exclusive rights" to activists, so it's more a matter of respect to the people who want to use the symbol (e.g. the pride flag, which few people have issues with it being used to exclusively represent LGBT groups) to make their cause more visible, rather than a lack of "inclusivity".
> The practice or policy of including people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those who have physical or mental disabilities and members of minority groups.
2. Without an understanding of power, is there a useful definition of "inclusivity"?
Or is it just a whitewashed feelgood platitude that can't mean anything in the end, because if you include everyone, including people who are decidedly discriminating against you, that it constitutes some ideal of "inclusiveness"?
> A small group of people within a community or country, differing from the main population in race, religion, language, or political persuasion.
With women being slightly more than 50% and men being slightly less than 50% of the main population in the country, that will makes men the minority group.
Women is not a minority group according to any dictionary.
But no, it doesn't mean that you have to include people who are decidedly discriminating against you. Which, again, has nothing to do with their power to actually do so, systemic or otherwise. For example, an NBP black supremacist can be rightly rejected because they're known for their anti-Semitic rants with threats of genocide, despite the fact that they have no ability to actually carry them out.
Quite fascinating, but also incredibly sad.
A) Emojis are better ideographs than CJK characters, not poorer ones. This is a horse, recognisably: [imagine the horse emoji here... :-) ]. This not so much in my view: 馬.
B) Nobody is proposing to replace all words with hackneyed emojis. (“Although” sort of sounds like “old owl”, so let’s replace it by an owl with gray hair, maybe sitting on top of a mouth so we can disambiguate it from a reference to an owl.)
C) The notion that CJK characters represent ideas, not words & sounds, (embedded in the term “ideograph”) has been extensively criticised, eg by John DeFrancis in his The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy.
Japanese characters are the other way around. They have semantics, but the only way to know the intended pronunciation is to look at the specific sentence in which one is being used. It's fair to say that a kanji in isolation doesn't have a pronunciation. This is the reason the Japanese weren't able to get by with just the characters -- Japanese text makes liberal use of kana to make up for the fact that kanji are, like emoji, all semantics and no pronunciation or syntax.
 Well, they do represent meaning too, much as English spelling does, but that's incidental to the way they function.
Edit: And there are tons of Unicode characters.
The blood droplet emoji by itself has plenty of other uses; blood donation, etc.
> A new "people holding hands" emoji will let users mix and match
> different skin tones and genders, with 171 possible combinations.
I have to admit that whilst emoji are fun the apparently endless growth in them combined with the way they break essentially every assumed invariant about text and thus create explosions of bugs all over previously working software is ... a bit concerning.
At this point, why not just define a set of code points that let you embed an SVG into the character stream? It'd result in fewer cases of broken text where new emoji are rendered by apps that are all of six months out of date. Actually defining an endless series of semantic code points just seems like a dead end for the Unicode Consortium that opens it up to relentless attacks by activists and political nonsense because it's changed its mandate from encoding languages to defining new ones.
I really think that we should've gone this direction as soon as it became clear people would never be satisfied with any finite set of emoji. SVG might be a bit verbose for transmission over SMS, so there's room for figuring out some simplified and more compact encoding, but this would've prevented the almost all the problems we're having with emojis today.
The two person holding hands emoji is actually implemented as person (with modifiers) + zero with joiner + handshake + zero width joiner + person (with modifiers)
Which is great, because it's backwards compatible, showing up as 3 emojis unless the font has special handling.
So if I used emojis, this one would be about "Oh shit, I'm bleeding again." Head wounds are the most impressive, in my experience. Just a scratch, and there's blood everywhere. I've shown up at meetings, with blood running down my forehead. But hey, they heal quickly, too.
But articles like this are built from the ground up to (a) get clicks and (b) get people fired up in the comments section to, you guessed it, get more clicks. Journalism, if you can even call it that anymore, is in a sorry state right now. And instead of proving Trump's inane "fake news" diatribes wrong, we have highly-respected news outlets essentially printing garbage like this.
Or that girls avoid school because they cannot afford tampons or pads? This doesn't just happen in poor countries, it happens in the UK: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/international-womens-day-...
Worry about your own problems. 75% of suicides in the UK are men. 70% of homeless in the UK are men. This is happening while people like you are busy worrying about whether women can effectively communicate about periods on whatsapp.
> men, men, more men
So should we worry about our own problems, or about men's problems?
Unsurprisnig when we consider the absolutely toxic arseholes who flood threads like these.
According to the article, the new blood drop emoji is justified because someone would need to cobble together some sequence of emoji to express the same concept. In many ways this problem is also the very reason that people enjoy using Emojis. The limitations of the medium requires creativity and humor from both the creator and the receiver. Having highly specified emojis can also take away from the fun of this, while also making it more difficult to explore the full set of available emoji.