> I find it annoying when people weave their personal non-technical agendas
This is the problem with people like yourself: just because someone makes a reference to something prevalent in their subculture in normal writing or conversation, you get all worked up and complain that they're trying to "push an agenda".
No, they're just speaking using their own subculture's jargon. I don't get why you seem to need to label it as something nefarious.
While I was aware of the sexual connotations of "top" and "bottom", I didn't know about this emoji's "alternate name" or its use here. It didn't detract from the article at all for me, and as a bonus, I learned something new about how people different from myself communicate sometimes.
About the only thing I can say in "agreement" is that sure, communicating in this manner can cause confusion and make such communication less clear. But the author probably doesn't particularly care about that, and has no obligation to do so.
This is the problem with people like yourself: just because someone makes a reference to something prevalent in their subculture in normal writing or conversation, you get all worked up and complain that they're trying to "push an agenda".
No, they're just speaking using their own subculture's jargon. I don't get why you seem to need to label it as something nefarious.
While I was aware of the sexual connotations of "top" and "bottom", I didn't know about this emoji's "alternate name" or its use here. It didn't detract from the article at all for me, and as a bonus, I learned something new about how people different from myself communicate sometimes.
About the only thing I can say in "agreement" is that sure, communicating in this manner can cause confusion and make such communication less clear. But the author probably doesn't particularly care about that, and has no obligation to do so.