Remove the laugh emoji for a more respectful community

[Scepticalscribe]

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.

Agree completely with you, and a heartfelt and profound amen to what you have written.

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.

Exactly.

And well said.

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.

Pathetic, isn't it?

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.

Agreed.

What is wrong with using words to make your case if you disagree with someone?

The neg emoji provides us with nothing really.

Amen to that.

This all worked quite well before these simpleton tools replaced speech and communication.

Bravo.

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.

Two thoughtful and nicely nuanced posts; thank you.

 

[icanhazmac]

The neg emoji provides us with nothing really.

First off I agree the 😡 is inherently negative and needs to either go away or "disagree" needs to be opened to all threads. I would like to be able to register disagreement without the angry emotion that goes along with the 😡. I have very little use for 😡 outside of a post that will probably get deleted by mods anyway because it clearly breaks the rules or is spam.

If you are including the "thumbs down" disagree emoji as being "negative" that is where we part ways. I am a strong believer that we can disagree on a topic without that being considered "negative".

This all worked quite well before these simpleton tools replaced speech and communication.

I disagree.

I have stated many times on this topic that emoji responses serve a purpose and I have yet to see a thread where no one used their "words" and only used emoji. We have no shortage of folks willing to use words.

IMHO the emoji responses allow for:

• The elimination of +1 agreements or disagreements. If one is allowed, they should both be allowed. Again, show me a thread where only "disagree" emoji was used and no one expressed disagreement via text.
• Members to register an opinion on a post if they are late to a thread and it is already 10 pages deep in worded discussion. By the 10th page chances are most opinions have been hashed out but members might still want to register their opinions without +1's or me too's.
• Members to register an opinion if they are pressed for time. They may come back later and respond with a typed response.
• Many people emote and type responses, so the argument that emoji responses limit dialogue is flawed. I am very sure some people emote only but I think they are in the minority.
• Member to register their opinion when they are not comfortable typing a response. Perhaps English is not their first language or perhaps they are just not confident enough to post or perhaps they are disabled and typing long responses is not easy for them.

I am for having more ways to communicate, not less.

 

[Tagbert]

First off I agree the 😡 is inherently negative and needs to either go away or "disagree" needs to be opened to all threads. I would like to be able to register disagreement without the angry emotion that goes along with the 😡. I have very little use for 😡 outside of a post that will probably get deleted by mods anyway because it clearly breaks the rules or is spam.

If you are including the "thumbs down" disagree emoji as being "negative" that is where we part ways. I am a strong believer that we can disagree on a topic without that being considered "negative".



I disagree.

I have stated many times on this topic that emoji responses serve a purpose and I have yet to see a thread where no one used their "words" and only used emoji. We have no shortage of folks willing to use words.

IMHO the emoji responses allow for:

• The elimination of +1 agreements or disagreements. If one is allowed, they should both be allowed. Again, show me a thread where only "disagree" emoji was used and no one expressed disagreement via text.
• Members to register an opinion on a post if they are late to a thread and it is already 10 pages deep in worded discussion. By the 10th page chances are most opinions have been hashed out but members might still want to register their opinions without +1's or me too's.
• Members to register an opinion if they are pressed for time. They may come back later and respond with a typed response.
• Many people emote and type responses, so the argument that emoji responses limit dialogue is flawed. I am very sure some people emote only but I think they are in the minority.
• Member to register their opinion when they are not comfortable typing a response. Perhaps English is not their first language or perhaps they are just not confident enough to post or perhaps they are disabled and typing long responses is not easy for them.

I am for having more ways to communicate, not less.

+1

 

[Alpha Centauri]

If you are including the "thumbs down" disagree emoji as being "negative" that is where we part ways. I am a strong believer that we can disagree on a topic without that being considered "negative".

I'm including it as it becomes unclear to what part of the comment the responder is disagreeing with. Sure, with a simple one liner it's obvious. But write more that one idea, stance, belief into it and thumbs down becomes absolutely useless and only leaves confusion or misunderstanding.

I disagree.

I have stated many times on this topic that emoji responses serve a purpose and I have yet to see a thread where no one used their "words" and only used emoji.

I see this all the time on the Front Page comments. Expanding on the emoji section where there's a thumbs down, very often it's the same members that leave a splattering of this particular emoji comment after comment (without writing a word themselves), almost like it's an Olympic event. I think there's a limit of 20/24hrs? Luckily.

I am for having more ways to communicate, not less.

More communication is a great thing, absolutely. But I feel that it does require all to speak the same language to effectively comment or debate a topic in a constructive manner. And that's where the intended meaning of emoji's coming from complete, anonymous strangers, often become open for interpretation.

 

[icanhazmac]

Sure, with a simple one liner it's obvious. But write more that one idea, stance, belief into it and thumbs down becomes absolutely useless and only leaves confusion or misunderstanding.

Expanding on the emoji section where there's a thumbs down, very often it's the same members that leave a splattering of this particular emoji comment after comment

Respectfully, why ever expand the emoji section then? If you, and others, find it useless then why ever look at them? You literally need to expand it to see the numbers and members so if you find no value why not just ignore it and allow those that find value in those responses to continue to have them?

Personally I have children that ironically laugh, I just silently laugh back and accept +1s to my meaningless reaction score. Let fools be fools and publicly label themselves as such. At least you know who they are, right?

I have also had the very puzzling, single or few, disagree or angry face reactions to my posts and you wonder why but at the end of the day they are a relatively small number of anonymous strangers, their "one off" opinions are meaningless. If you have 50 likes and 1 oddball angry face with no text response, who cares? I won't lose a wink of sleep over that one anonymous stranger and their strange reaction.

And that's where the intended meaning of emoji's coming from complete, anonymous strangers, often become open for interpretation.

True, the emoji system is not perfect, but I have read some completely incomprehensible posts too. Perhaps some members should be limited to emoji only? /s /justjoking

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful debate.

 

[adrianlondon]

+1

This!

 

[Euroamerican]

Only people who agree with me should be allowed to post replies.

If you disagree with me, you are to be cancelled.

-----------------------------

 

[rm5]

This is exactly like the "laughing" reaction on every other platform. I really hate it, and I almost never use it. I say "almost" because I'm sure there's been a time or two where I've used it, but I really don't like it.

In my opinion, it's up to the individual person to have good morals. Removing the laughing emoji isn't necessarily going to fix all disrespect.

 

[rm5]

The complaints here are not coming from younger folks.

How do you know? And also, why on Earth does that matter?

 

[erihp]

Don’t let the little things bother you.

 

[I7guy]

I'm including it as it becomes unclear to what part of the comment the responder is disagreeing with. Sure, with a simple one liner it's obvious. But write more that one idea, stance, belief into it and thumbs down becomes absolutely useless and only leaves confusion or misunderstanding.
[…]

The same happens with every emoji especially in long posts and the “like” shouldn’t get a pass.

I only think there should be one change. The laughing emoji should be reworked to include a thumbs up. This will leave no doubt about the usage.

As for the disagree emoji, some people write posts so blatantly idiotic and hyperbolic that the only response needed is the disagree emoji.

 

[decafjava]

How do you know? And also, why on Earth does that matter?

It doesn't, immaturity and ignorance is not confined to any one generation in my experience.

 

[KaliYoni]

It doesn't, immaturity and ignorance is not confined to any one generation in my experience.

If anything, I'd say they have a barbell-shaped distribution, tied to one's age.
;-)

Seriously, though, I think the misuse and abuse of the laugh emoji has led to its meaning becoming ambiguous on MR. To me, that is the best argument for modifying the emoji schema.

 

[rm5]

Maybe people who get insulted should try to change themselves instead, like being more resistent to bullying.

WHAT?! I can understand the second part about change ultimately resulting in a better experience later on, but definitely not this first part.

A couple things:

1. How is someone supposed to just change themself without empathy from another person? That, from personal experience, is the way to become resistant to bullying.
2. You know who needs to grow up? The person doing the insulting. How is telling the affected person that going to help them? It just won't.

Sure, I've become a little tougher over the years, but I still find this very unsettling.

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

Right.

 

[rm5]

And, y'know what? What if we had just two reactions: like and dislike. Very simple and effective. No laughing, no crying, no getting angry. Just like and dislike. There.

 

[rm5]

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.

I don't know. It makes the user look "good" because they have a 100,000 reaction score, and that's supposed to make you superior! As for the others, sure, I've probably used the laughing reaction a few times, and the sad/angry ones, too. Doesn't give you an "advantage" though.

Think about it like any other social media—why are there emoji reactions on Discord? What about Tapback on iMessage? It's the same thing.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

And, y'know what? What if we had just two reactions: like and dislike. Very simple and effective. No laughing, no crying, no getting angry. Just like and dislike. There.

Personally, I'd remove even those two.

Well, perhaps leave the "like", which would require those who "dislike", or "disagree", or want to give offence, or wish to signal corrosive contempt, to (at the very least), use words, rather than attempt to seek refuge by hiding behind an illiterate symbol to do so.

 

[AL2TEACH]

At the end of the day, it's the internet. Don't take it too seriously.

Amen and etc...

OMG - can't believe this is actually a discussion. Hope the mods don't take it seriously.

I hope they are reading and are having to wipe the tears from their eyes.

 

[ipaqrat]

OMG - can't believe this is actually a discussion. Hope the mods don't take it seriously.

Exactly! This thread is not about the forum's emoticon quick-reactions. It is about posters who can't take a hard look in public, or believe people like them just because they're polite, or feel diminished because they don't receive fawning praise for their every utterance. Those people deserve a choice, though:

1. Grow a spine and stop being such a precious little snowflake, or
2. Keep off social media, because society is made principally of people.

I get schooled here all the time, and I hope I help folks, too. Interesting topics are inherently contentious, and the quick reaction emoticons can be as helpful as long-form blather (I do lots of both) <shrugs>.

Dear Mods, Thanks for being a bunch of masochists. Please keep the whole spread of reactions.

 

[nateo200]

Yes. The idea that you can "cancel something" is very weak from a conceptual standpoint.


You can never hurt a conceptually powerful person and most often you will always end up working for somebody who is better "equipped" than you are. This is why I always try to concentrate on understanding the concepts behind certain ideas. It is not always about what you know for a fact but how you deal with not knowing something.

It is like when somebody says: "Hang on, let this guy speak looks like he is going to set the stage how we want it without us having to do anything."

Very insightful post.

Is it "Subversive Messaging" or inference of intent that may or may not be there. I see a lot of people that automatically assume the worst when reading text, since there is no way to see the face, body language or hear the tone of the statement.

I think there are people that can use it hurtfully, I think there are more that use it in good humor. It is our own ego that has us assuming it is always meant to hurt us specifically. Humans love to assign feelings to words and emojis, even if there is no evidence to support the presence of such feelings.

To paraphrase the Big Toe in the movie Stripes, "Perhaps it is time to lighten up Francis".

I feel like a lot of people on the internet are unhealthy and just assume the worst because they are projecting. The laughing emoji doesnt feel good when you genuinely put effort into a good post but idk its the internet. Moderation should be done on a case-by-case basis and only where it is most egregious unless mods dont have better things to do.

 

[nateo200]

It may be the best of a poor series of choices.

Personally, I would like to see all emojis discarded.

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.

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.

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.

But why do you want to scrap emoji's? Maybe just don't look at them then? MAybe a visibility toggle would be the ultimate compromise because I don't see how dumbing the site down and making it blander is a good idea over something this minor. I liked Macrumors back in the day but I prefer it now lol

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Exactly! This thread is not about the forum's emoticon quick-reactions.

No, I beg to differ.

It is about posters who can't take a hard look in public, or believe people like them just because they're polite, or feel diminished because they don't receive fawning praise for their every utterance.

Actually, it is about tone - and how a courteous tone contributes to a discussion, meaning that while disagreement exists, so, too, does respect, while a discourteous one does not.

This is not about "liking" someone, or "liking" what they say - and I think it instructive that you have chosen to confuse and conflate the two things - rather, this is about creating an atmosphere, an environment, where it is possible to have a discussion without wishing to replicate the atmosphere of the schoolyard while doing so.

Those people deserve a choice, though:

1. Grow a spine and stop being such a precious little snowflake, or

This argument is the old "bullies blaming the victim" for evincing an inadequate degree of stoic endurance while being bullied.

More to the point: Why should anyone be expected to "grow a spine"? Why facilitate discourtesy (masked as "humour"?) Why should boorish behaviour, offensive conduct, and flagrant discourtesy be accepted, let alone encouraged and facilitated?

Instead, why not expect a basic degree of courtesy and respect while engaging in conversation or discussion?

Otherwise, the loudest voice and most offensive individuals are allowed to set the tone and temper of a platform.

1. Keep off social media, because society is made principally of people.

No, not this option either.

Partly because social media is a necessary part of our world, both publicly and privately, and secondly, because to retreat from engagement without seeking to hold it to account allows the loudest and most boorish and offensive voices to take control, and to determine both tone and content. of the platform

But that is no reason not to hold social media to account, and to expect (and indeed, demand) that it adhere to standards and norms of courtesy.

 

[ipaqrat]

No, I beg to differ...

The NORMS of Courtesy include not just humility in success, but also coping gracefully with the perpetual waves of misinterpretation, displacement, projection, denial and other revealing defense mechanisms. The NORMS or Courtesy mean not losing your **** when someone mispeaks, or thumbs you down because they're in a snit, or calls out for behaving like a knucklehead. Invoking the NORMS of Courtesy depends on having grown a spine. My spine is just happens to be bit twisted these days from wrangling horses. Want to know if your opinions on quick reaction emoticons are on the level? Ask a horse to regain some perspective.

 

[rm5]

This thread is not about the forum's emoticon quick-reactions. It is about posters who can't take a hard look in public, or believe people like them just because they're polite, or feel diminished because they don't receive fawning praise for their every utterance. Those people deserve a choice, though:

1. Grow a spine and stop being such a precious little snowflake, or
2. Keep off social media, because society is made principally of people.

I get schooled here all the time, and I hope I help folks, too. Interesting topics are inherently contentious, and the quick reaction emoticons can be as helpful as long-form blather (I do lots of both) <shrugs>.

"Taking a hard look in public" and handling outright negativity are two completely different things. On this site specifically (we're not talking about other platforms), I've experienced both. I am fine with people politely correcting me - addressing the problem and providing a solution, and I feel fine when that happens. The problem arises when someone basically says, "You don't know what you're talking about." I've had that happen, too, and that is bad.

In one particular instance, someone replied to one of my posts with something like, "I'd appreciate it if we had replies from people who can comprehend simple sentences." It was something like that - basically claiming that I can't read or understand words. Rather than reporting said post, I just unwatched the thread.

If I didn't understand what was being said, I either would ask for clarification, or say nothing at all.

So sure, I can take someone who is kind and constructive in their reply, clearly stating what I might've done wrong, but I can NOT stand outright harassment. Luckily that's only happened once to me on here so far.

You have a point, and I respect and understand it, but the two are completely different.

 

[ipaqrat]

"Taking a hard look in public" and handling outright negativity are two completely different things. On this site specifically (we're not talking about other platforms), I've experienced both. I am fine with people politely correcting me - addressing the problem and providing a solution, and I feel fine when that happens. ...

Totally agree with you 👍. They are very different. You put it eloquently, I might add.

I contend that the negative Quick Reaction Emoticons equate to nothing more than a scowl, or a smile, in public.

Negative Quick Reaction Emoticons ARE very different than "outright negativity," which requires some prosaic expression beyond a passing thumbs-down or frowny face.

Feeling disrespected or injured merely by an oversimplified emoticons is plainly weak. And THAT'S not due to having the emoticons available or using them.

Heck, i appreciate even the negative emoticons - means someone paused long enough to react to what I wrote. Which is invariably too long and repetitive.