| > You've missed the point completely and have created a strawman-based rant. No. And two phrases don’t a rant make. You’ve written about 3 times as much in response. > The problem with emoji is that there is no dictionary, no standardised meaning or interpretation guidelines; no unified, context-dependent cues that everyone subconsciously agrees to. Have you never encountered slangs once in your life? Because not being understood by everyone is quite literally the point. > When emoji start getting overused to the point where you have to draw meaning from the skin tones involved in a handshake, that's a step too far IMHO. “Emoji are used a lot therefore emoji are bad” is certainly a take. > This is precisely why we struggle with deciphering hieroglyphics and precisely why emoji must remain a supplement to language, not a replacement for it as many use. You seem to understand hieroglyphics about as well as you understand emoji, or slang, or langage in general. And we actually understand hieroglyphs really really well. Unlike, say, Linear A, or Etruscan (that one is rather interesting because the script is a known alphabet, but since we know nothing of the langage that’s not at all helpful, in the same way English and Romanian both using the Latin script… is not actually helpful to deciphering Romanian knowing only English). |