Perhaps I’m just a little slow on the uptake here, but did I miss the answer to this part? I guess I can infer a possible answer from the other bits, but I didn’t see clear one here. The Simpson’s default one is not best, white one might give the wrong impression, so do you just refrain from tapping it in solidarity? Do you +1, but not be the first one to post the fist to begin with?
(as an extremely awkward person, I assure you this is a question asked in good faith.)
I think the problem is less that someone will make a big deal about it, and more that there are a set of default racist assumptions about what “a person” looks like, which will be absorbed into whatever representation of “a person” is used. So, yes–there is no hope for a non-racist understanding of most symbols for “a person” so long as the underlying default racist assumptions exist.
Could this problem be solved by a return to emoticons?
I think so! : D
Again I’m just absolutely stunned by that take.
Using the Simpsons as an example;
Even though they are yellow in complexion, yellow is presented as ‘the default, the norm,’ ie the way White people have presented themselves in every form of media since it was invented.
The reason that we know that in the Simpsons yellow = White is because of the existence of token characters like Apu, who is Brown and speaks with a thick stereotypical accent.
If yellow wasn’t meant to replace Whiteness, they could have made Apu purple and ditched the fucked up accent… but they didn’t.
Using Legos as an example:
As stated upthead, yellow was the “neutral” default meant to represent “everyone…” until Lego started manufacturing characters who were Black or Brown. That they kept the yellow figs yellow while adding Brown figs meant that yellow became a substitute for White skin.
That you personally ‘don’t happen to see it that way’ is highly irrelevant; many people who are not the direct victims of racism “can’t see” racism, even when it’s right in front of them.
Forget the thumbs up, I’m curious to know the etiquette regarding the “OK” hand gesture. Honestly, I’m speaking purely from a position of ignorance here, but has the symbol now been completely co-opted by white supremicists to the point where nobody should ever use it, or are there still contexts where it’s considered acceptable? If someone used a darker-skinned “ok” emoji would people assume that person was driving trollies? If so, has there been public pressure to eliminate that emoji entirely?
And, again, I’m asking an honest question here as someone who hasn’t always kept up with the latest cultural trends. I gather that a bunch of white folks posing in a photo doing that gesture can generally be assumed to be sending a racist message nowadays, at least in North America. But I don’t really have a good sense of when that becare a thing, or whether we should consider it to be a permanent shift in meaning.
Personally I quit using it and just type the letters ‘OK.’
It sucks when something so commonplace gets co-opted by evil, but once it’s tainted, it’s tainted.
Just as there’s no saving or ‘taking back’ the swastika, the damage has been done.
Ol Korrect?
Aye, that ship has sailed.
“Toast can’t never be bread again.”
I guess that makes sense, although it’s hard for me to think of precedent for anything that was so commonly used by such a wide swath of society as something positive to be co-opted into a symbol of hate that quickly, which is why it’s still so jarring to me. Are there similar examples? The swastika may have been an ancient symbol in Eastern cultures but it wasn’t ever especially common as a symbol in European society prior to the Nazis taking ownership of it.
Edit to add: Never mind. I just thought of a very similar example. The Bellamy salute.
Me too, and that the subsequent proliferation of yellow emojis just followed that.
It’s vital to listen, though, and I’m dismissing nothing.
Except US ‘pizzas’ 
Except it kind of was, especially in Northern Europe (which makes sense given the Nazis fetishisation of all things Nordic).
Ok, in that case I stand corrected.
It’s all about inclusion and being able to further enhance expressiveness. Why should the only family emoji options include a white hetero couple? Why shouldn’t non-white (or cartoon yellow) skin tones be represented? Why shouldn’t those with wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, or other assistive devices have representation?
These things may not be important to me – but I’m not the target audience here. I can recognize the importance of marginalized folks being able to better express themselves through emoji.
, 
.
Maybe emojis are dumb, and we should use words to say things about stuff. This is, however, my mostly uninformed opinion, as I am a construction worker, and not a very accomplished linguist.
it reminds me a bit of blackface. i mean if luke skywalker can be bright yellow, when the actor is clearly not, then why the heck does a lando minifig have to be brown?
and i think, like you say, it’s because of the default is white mindset and maybe the mindset of tokenism - lando’s quirky personality trait is his skin color, selected in part doubtless to contrast, distinguish with han who was the default white smuggler. ( almost the way that smurfette’s trait wasn’t that she was strong, or dopey, or the leader, or a baker, whatever - but that she was a girl. )
and i’m sure lego execs were like - lando’s minifig can’t be yellow - white people wouldn’t believe it, wouldn’t recognize it as lando.
which is fing sad and awful.
Or we could go back to the old-school text only emojis (:>)
yellow was the “neutral” default meant to represent “everyone…” until Lego started manufacturing characters who were Black or Brown. That they kept the yellow figs yellow while adding Brown figs meant that yellow became a substitute for White skin.
The licensed minifigs I’ve seen in recent years haven’t used yellow though - there are different shades of white for many of the characters, along with brown & black ones - thinking of the Star Wars, Toy Story, Jurassic World, and Marvel sets from the last couple of years.
Their in-house characters and sets continue to predominately use yellow - where I’m pretty sure it’s meant to represent “everyone” still (thinking of Ninjago in particular here).
Yes, because someone somewhere at some point finally realized that’s there’s real money to be made from inclusion.
Again, Lego mini-figs aren’t the actual topic at hand.
Crayola no longer calls its’ peach shade “flesh.”
Mattel offers an entire array of diversity in its’ dolls now.
Emojis come in a variety of shades.
And those baby steps, while valid, are all still just that - BABY STEPS.
They are just a scratch of the thinnest, outermost surface of fixing our fucked up society where racism, sexism, and pretty much every other unfair, divisive ‘ism’ you can think of is baked right into the fucking foundation.
