Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good thing then being inclusive involves all races and genders then, including the dominant one. It would be pretty terrible if a historically "dominant" demographic felt persecuted because of equal options with emoji colors.
This common argument is disingenuous. You hide behind the term "inclusive" as though everyone is treated equally but simultaneously believe that >Excluding skin color and gender is being blind to prejudice, not fighting it. Which implies that historic and current prejudice must be corrected with more prejudice. Which is inconsistent with inclusiveness and equality. And we've all seen how this works in practice - cert…
I'm not sure why having different colored emojis has triggered an essay to redefine inclusivity as persecution for some hypothetical "dominant" demographic, but you are proving my point.
By using weak words to avoiding naming the demographic you feel is actually persecuted here, you're turning a blind eye to centuries of prejudicial conflict and injustice - context that defeats your attempt at semantics.