Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Haswell
Jul 29, 2008
64,090
46,546
In a coffee shop.
I don’t know. Removing the emoji feels wrong somehow.
It may be the best of a poor series of choices.

Personally, I would like to see all emojis discarded.
Isn’t it like hiding the problem instead of dealing with it?
Not necessarily.

It may make those who wish to engage in such derisive mockery, (for the "laughing at" as used by some is not about laughter, but signalling a corrosive contempt), be obliged to work a little harder to show contempt while simultaneously masking it.

For, as things stand, the "laughing at" emoji as used by some is not about laughter, but signalling a corrosive contempt.

Many who use it are still able to hide behind the ambiguity of how that emoji as used at present if called out on it so that they can deny doing anything of the sort if challenged and called out on their behaviour.
Maybe people who get insulted should try to change themselves instead, like being more resistent to bullying.
Blame the victim, eh?

Seriously, telling those on the receiving end of bullying to "try to change themselves" is horrible advice.

To my mind, bullies are the ones whose behaviour needs to be challenged, called out, and faced down, - and, by those who are in a position to do so, which is rarely the victim.
People have laughed at me many times here and in real life. Changing oneself is more difficult but it might lead to a better result.
Easy to say when one is not the victim.

And it should not be too much to ask that one treats one's interlocutors - online as in life - with some respect.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: erihp and rm5

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Haswell
Jul 29, 2008
64,090
46,546
In a coffee shop.
We will just get more replies which comprise of something like the following:

LOL.🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And, what is the problem with that?
I think we are all better off without those. Accept the beauty of the laughing emoji response for what it does.
The problem is that - as used currently - it can be used to signal two (quite different) emotions, which blur "the beauty" of the laughing emoji response.

There is a significant difference between "laughing at" someone and "laughing with" someone.

Some systems have a "roll eyes" emoji; one could contemplate adding such an emoji, or something similar, which would allow to signal that particular emotion by use of an emoji.
 

Knavel

macrumors member
Aug 10, 2021
42
41
However, the removal of this feature will - or, rather would - ensure that that they will not be able to use that emoji in such a context.

If they choose to "laugh at" someone, they will have to find another means by which they can express that emotion.
And people will always find another means. The only consequence of removing the laugh emoji would be sacrificing the ability to express genuine mirth so that people who are expressing mockery will have to do it a different way. How is that a win for anyone?

Think of countries where various messages have been banned from protest signs, and finally people walk around holding up blank sheets of cardstock - and sometimes getting arrested for that too. Is that progress?

People sometimes find other people's opinions worthy of disdain. That is a fact that will not change, no matter how much some other people might want it to.

In the current situation, the disdainers typically click the "laugh" button, creating an easily ignored emoji indicator, and move on. Without that, they would be more likely to find other ways to express that disdain. Perhaps writing biting comments which linger for a while before a mod removes them. Perhaps by co-opting a different emoji. Perhaps with veiled sarcasm.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: erihp

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Haswell
Jul 29, 2008
64,090
46,546
In a coffee shop.
And people will always find another means.
Fine.

Let this task then exercise their ingenuity and creativity.


The only consequence of removing the laugh emoji would be sacrificing the ability to express genuine mirth so that people who are expressing mockery will have to do it a different way.

That is exactly what I am pleading for.

They have made a mockery (all puns intended) of the laugh emoji, by traducing it so that it is no longer rclear what someone means when using it.

For my part, I only ever use it - and then, very sparingly - with posters I know well, that is, people whom I know will understand that this is a used as a device to signal admiration for wit, or genuine amusement.

In fact, precisely because I am all too aware of how the use of this emoji has come to be interpreted, I deliberately do not use it to express mirth; instead, I will use words.

In fact, to remove all ambiguity, these days, I will usually write - in words - that I have found a post funny, or witty, or subtle.

The problem with the laugh emoji is that it has become so abused, so traduced, so contaminated, that one's first reaction when seeing it here is that this is not expressing "genuine mirth" but, rather, is expressing mocking derision. That is what it has turned into.

Thus, because of the way it has become abused, the meaning of the emoji can no longer be taken at face value; it is like any evolution of a living language.

The circumstances of its use (abuse) mean that it no longer means, or solely means, still less, mainly means that which it had been designed to express, namely, "genuine mirth".

And that, in turn, means that either it should be reclaimed to allow it, to enable it, to express "genuine mirth", and a new emoji added to allow for the expression of derisory mockery, (assuming that the forum wishes to allow for the forml expression of sneering derision; it may not wish to openly allow such a thing).

Or, it should be acknowledged that the "laugh" emoji has failed in its intended purpose, and that the new meaning it has acquired through use (abuse) - an expression of sneering derision - is what this emoji has come to mean, and allow it to remain as it is, but with a new - different - emoji designed (or created) to express "genune mirth".

Or, failing that, perhaps it should be removed entirely for the lexicon of emojis.
How is that a win for anyone?
Clarity.

And it removes the possibility of hiding behind pretend good intentions for those who wish to use the laugh emoji to mock, jeer and deride, but who - when called out - attempt to seek refuge behind the feeble excuse of "only joking".
.......

People sometimes find other people's opinions worthy of disdain. That is a fact that will not change, no matter how much some other people might want it to.
Sure.

But they won't be able to use a "laugh" emoji to do so.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: erihp

Knavel

macrumors member
Aug 10, 2021
42
41
But they won't be able to use a "laugh" emoji to do so.
At its essence, I guess I completely fail to understand why that in particular matters.

It's like saying we are going to stop car thefts by removing Stanley brand medium-sized flathead screwdrivers from the shelves, because they are sometimes used for that. This will have no impact on car thefts, because there are plenty of other tools that are useful for stealing a car, even sold elsewhere on the same shelf. All that happens is that people who wanted that particular screwdriver now can't have one.
 

avz

macrumors 68000
Oct 7, 2018
1,781
1,865
Stalingrad, Russia
At its essence, I guess I completely fail to understand why that in particular matters.

It's like saying we are going to stop car thefts by removing Stanley brand medium-sized flathead screwdrivers from the shelves, because they are sometimes used for that. This will have no impact on car thefts, because there are plenty of other tools that are useful for stealing a car, even sold elsewhere on the same shelf. All that happens is that people who wanted that particular screwdriver now can't have one.
I guess this is because the mods are fairly limited in what they can do(can't expect them to be a conceptual masterminds in every situation) so removing the "instrument" of a potential abuse is what they can do from the realistic standpoint.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: erihp

JustAnExpat

macrumors 6502a
Nov 27, 2019
908
941
Let's back up. What's the point in having the reactions anyway? What value does it give to the users? I don't see the value in the reactions.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: erihp

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Haswell
Jul 29, 2008
64,090
46,546
In a coffee shop.
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but emojis will never hurt me.
They may not hurt you, but their use in this manner does serve to make the online experience (and the tone of the site, a thread full of mocking derision is not a terribly pleasant place to visit) a lot less congenial for some other people.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: erihp

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
Let's back up. What's the point in having the reactions anyway? What value does it give to the users? I don't see the value in the reactions.

Example: "Apple is fantastically wonderful and practically perfect in every way"

20,000 thumbs up in that ONE post or 20,000 posts saying "I think so too... and bestest of the best" and all variations of gushing praise?

Example 2: "Apple is terrible, greedy, evil, crooked, liar, etc"

20,000 thumbs down in that ONE post or 20,000 posts attacking that poster?

In less extreme posts, IMO, I'd rather not have to skim through dozens-to-hundreds "me too"/"I think so too" posts when a number next to an emoji can hopefully minimize all that duplication. Somebody writes their opinion and there's overwhelming thumbs up, thumbs down, anger, laughter, etc and I can quickly see what many forum members seem to think of whatever was written.

To THIS particular emoji, I readily use the laughing emoji to acknowledge FUNNY posts... of which there is plenty of good humor in most threads. Laughing at creative jokes seems like a great thing to me... much better than 50-100 posts "that's so funny" over and over. And if it's not fun at least some of the time, what are we doing here?

I'll also use it sometimes to laugh at outrageous posts typically written by obvious fanatic fans or anti-fans. No need to debate in writing with the extremists because their view is the only possible view. So one click of an emoji can basically allow their "say" to live on without wasting time trying to post something more reasonable about whatever they've posted. I prefer to laugh than thumbs down something in which they very obviously believe.

If others do the same, I know the crowd either reads it as funny or- if there is no joke- I know the crowd finds the post towards outrageous and just move on beyond the extremism.

Lump me in with the "sticks & stones..." group here... which I presume is probably those NOT at the extreme ends of the spectrum, but those more towards the middle, who generally offer posts I find most interesting & informative anyway... usually reflecting a view of the topic through a pure consumer lens than as a shareholder or closet Apple marketer or obvious troll trying to stir the pot.
 

fatTribble

macrumors 65816
Sep 21, 2018
1,424
3,894
Ohio
I do like the Like and Love reactions. The rest could go as far as I’m concerned.

I‘ve often posted something that I thought was completely innocuous and without explanation I’ll get the same few people giving me the angry face. Yes, I’ve learned to expect it which makes it easy to ignore.

I’d rather have people disagree by using their words.
 

Alpha Centauri

macrumors 65816
Oct 13, 2020
1,250
986
Yer, I'm also one for keeping thumbs up and the love symbol, discarding the rest. The angry and thumbs down emoji provide absolutely zero value and tends to want to stir the pot unnecessarily.

Well, problem is that there's no explanation as to what portion of the comment, and why, it is being responded to in the first place. With them gone, the responder would actually have to provide a critical comment as to why they disagree and hopefully offer a resulting discussion. I've noticed mainly in the news section that certain members just rip through their daily quota of negative emoji, almost just because they can or feel a need to use them all up.
 

Tagbert

macrumors 603
Jun 22, 2011
5,586
6,532
Seattle
And, what is the problem with that?

The problem is that - as used currently - it can be used to signal two (quite different) emotions, which blur "the beauty" of the laughing emoji response.

There is a significant difference between "laughing at" someone and "laughing with" someone.

Some systems have a "roll eyes" emoji; one could contemplate adding such an emoji, or something similar, which would allow to signal that particular emotion by use of an emoji.
Human communication is complex and subtle. There are lot of cases where a message can have multiple meanings. that is a good thing for rich communications.

Also, sometimes a post isn’t worth a full reply but a reaction is the right level of engagement. I would hope that most people are adult enough to not feel personally offended by a negative reaction, though if you are getting a lot of them, perhaps some introspection is in order.
 

Tagbert

macrumors 603
Jun 22, 2011
5,586
6,532
Seattle
Yer, I'm also one for keeping thumbs up and the love symbol, discarding the rest. The angry and thumbs down emoji provide absolutely zero value and tends to want to stir the pot unnecessarily.

Well, problem is that there's no explanation as to what portion of the comment, and why, it is being responded to in the first place. With them gone, the responder would actually have to provide a critical comment as to why they disagree and hopefully offer a resulting discussion. I've noticed mainly in the news section that certain members just rip through their daily quota of negative emoji, almost just because they can or feel a need to use them all up.
If you don’t provide some outlook for frustration, it may just come out in more flaming posts. Think of it as a safety valve. The feeling are going to be there, don’t bottle them up. We can’t fully sanitize everyone’s feelings and communication.
 

Alpha Centauri

macrumors 65816
Oct 13, 2020
1,250
986
If you don’t provide some outlook for frustration, it may just come out in more flaming posts. Think of it as a safety valve. The feeling are going to be there, don’t bottle them up. We can’t fully sanitize everyone’s feelings and communication.
Hmm, but would at least provide an explanation that the comment (or some and which one?) might have been actually misunderstood prior to the unloading the angry or thumbs down expression. It could just as easily been clarified in a respectful discussion. The neg emoji provides us with nothing really. This all worked quite well before these simpleton tools replaced speech and communication. I don't feel its sanitizing but giving opportunity to learn about the disagreement, perhaps even reevaluate own response. Further firing them in the max numbers does indicate severe lack of skill to communicate or retort.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.