▲ | philwelch 2 days ago | |||||||
> When people chose that, would that be considered drawing attention to their skimcolor or gender Absolutely. But let me posit a scenario that’s actually realistic. Suppose you’re running an orchestra. People are concerned about discrimination so you implement a blind audition policy where the auditioning musician can’t actually be seen by the people evaluating their performance. Afterwards, it turns out your orchestra is still predominantly made up of white and East Asian musicians so you decide to make the blind audition optional and make a bunch of tedious statements about how the orchestra isn’t diverse enough and you want more underrepresented minorities. What’s going to happen then is that the underrepresented minorities are going to do non-blind auditions because you’ve all but promised them you’d give them preference while the white and Asian musicians will continue doing blind auditions. | ||||||||
▲ | sedatk a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Your scenario is about hiring practices. What I'm talking about is a workplace setting; it means everyone is already hired, everyone already knows each other's skin color. Even if there are people who might want to take advantage of privileges based on their skin color, it wouldn't matter at the time. Even if it mattered, emoji wouldn't make a difference. I see no difference between using emojis with skin color and showing up to work without a head mask and a full body suit. Neither signals an agenda. It's just how we exist in society. If someone feels that seeing a skin colored emoji as an imposition, and is forced to make a decision that they wouldn't otherwise do because of that emojji's color, they shouldn't be doing that job. | ||||||||
|