[renato_casutt]

Hi kranner I didn't mean to offend you. Or misrepresent the culture with a memoji. Sorry. If you feel it's out of order, then I can change it too. But what is more crucial for me is what Sangeeth said. And that is more important to me. By the way, all testimonials are real. 100%

[JadeNB]

> Hi kranner I didn't mean to offend you. Or misrepresent the culture with a memoji. Sorry. If you feel it's out of order, then I can change it too. But what is more crucial for me is what Sangeeth said. And that is more important to me. By the way, all testimonials are real. 100%

I think that the general idea is that either you're guessing at the appropriate representation of the testifying users, or that they've picked those emoji. If the latter, then all is good! If the former, then it's generally a bad idea to assume that you know something about a person based on their name, or even, really, anything other than their implicit election. (I would certainly be upset if a business to whom I had offered a testimonial used it and misidentified me, even in ways that may seem trivial, especially if they could have just asked me.)

[renlo]

In addition to pronouns, let's include emojis that we feel identify ourselves

[JadeNB]

> In addition to pronouns, let's include emojis that we feel identify ourselves

I assume that was sarcastic, but why not? Do you have any right to choose the emoji to identify me? I mean, you surely have every right to editorialise with an emoji that you think reflects my behaviour, but, if you're going to quote me below a symbolic representation, then I think it's different. If one has to use an emoji to identify someone—and it's not at all clear to me that it's necessary—then, after all, we're talking about who has reached out; why not just ask them?

(For example, surely—right?—we can agree that it would be bad to say "a user from India gave this testimonial:", or whatever—unless the place of origin is relevant, and you actually know it. I don't see much difference between these two.)

[oauea]

> Do you have any right to choose the emoji to identify me

If it's posted on my website, then yes. It might not be polite or advisable, but I absolutely have the right to misgender you as well.

[hunter-gatherer]

Let's just take the emojis away if we all can't get along with them.

[JadeNB]

It certainly seems clear that renato_cassutt, who it is clear can taken constructive criticism and who has given very useful replies throughout the comments, meant no-one any harm; and neither I nor, I am sure, kranner meant to impute any ill intent. I can understand the appeal of pictorial representations of one's users; I was just, and I suspect that kranner was also, trying to mention the possible inadvertent offence that might result in this way, not to ruin anyone's fun but to save someone from an inadvertent misstep.

[kranner]

Thanks JadeNB. I'm pretty sure that renato_cassutt didn't mean any harm and that the testimonial is from a real user. The context that many are missing here is that a turban is religious headwear like a yarmulke. As a Sikh you have to be authorised to wear one in a ceremony called a "dastaarbandi", and there are rules of conduct while wearing one in public. It's inadvisable to add one to the depiction of a person unless they choose it themselves. This kind of thing (e.g. inappropriate Sikh representation in movies) regularly becomes a political issue in India. In renato_cassutt's case, it's an unnecessary distraction from the actual product.

[kranner]

Hi renato_casutt, I'm not offended at all and congratulations on launching. I only commented to point out that the turban+name combination makes the comment look inauthentic which may be an issue in the intended use of the comment as social proof.