Remove the laugh emoji for a more respectful community

[tweaknmod]

Direct mocking of other users is not allowed. I completely agree with this.

The laugh reaction is, I’m sure, intended for laughing at good natured jokes. The reality is that it is used, more often than not, to laugh at the opinions of others, to mock, and belittle them - just like directly mocking another user.

I truly believe that removing emoji reaction will foster a more respectful community and discourage belittling of the opinions of others. I don’t think it’ll magically make everybody hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I do think it would help.

I’ve had people use the reaction to my opinions or my perspectives; it really sucks and discourages me from participating more.

Edit: Case in point, look at the number of laugh reactions to this post.

 

[StralyanPithecus]

I‘m for removing :-( it really depresses me.

 

[Apple_Robert]

If you believe a user or users are using the laughing emoji to harass you, report the post and give some background to the mods about the situation. I agree with you. It is a problem. I have had several people do the same to me (no matter what the post says) on a regular basis.

 

[Clix Pix]

Just remove the whole "reactions" thing altogether..... I think that in the long run this would improve things around here significantly! it really is too easy to simply hit an emoji rather than actually use words to express one's actual thoughts on a given topic, and it also is way too easy for that emoji to be misinterpreted by the OP or someone else looking at the thread.

In addition, the easy and casual use of emojis tends to turn some threads into mere popularity contests, which I don't think is really the kind of impression that the leadership of MR wants to convey.

 

[Juicy Box]

I didn't know it meant something bad.

Wonder if I ever used it to laugh at something that was funny at the poster thought I was mocking them?

 

[GMShadow]

Direct mocking of other users is not allowed. I completely agree with this.

The laugh reaction is, I’m sure, intended for laughing at good natured jokes. The reality is that it is used, more often than not, to laugh at the opinions of others, to mock, and belittle them - just like directly mocking another user.

I truly believe that removing emoji reaction will foster a more respectful community and discourage belittling of the opinions of others. I don’t think it’ll magically make everybody hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I do think it would help.

I’ve had people use the reaction to my opinions or my perspectives; it really sucks and discourages me from participating more.

If you remove it, people will just find a new way to react negatively. Sometimes posts are also ridiculous.

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

Just remove the whole "reactions" thing altogether..... I think that in the long run this would improve things around here significantly!

As has been explained previously, the ability to simply tap the thumbs up saves us from seeing 200 quote posts of "agreed" or similar.

 

[Juicy Box]

Just remove the whole "reactions" thing altogether..... I think that in the long run this would improve things around here significantly!

As has been explained previously, the ability to simply tap the thumbs up saves us from seeing 200 quote posts of "agreed" or similar.

Yeah, I have been saying this in similar threads about the reactions. There seems to be a new thread about it every couple months.

Actually, when there was a poll about what to do about the thumbs down, I voted to get rid of all the reactions except thumbs up and thumbs down. That keeps it simple.

 

[Analog Kid]

There was another thread some time ago trying to restructure the reaction options that resulted in a poll and a conclusion that people didn't want to change anything. Was it the thumbs down thread? I'll have to look...

There's a few things I'd change-- eliminate laugh and angry, both which have the same "with or at" ambiguity, harmonize the language to agree/disagree or like/dislike but like/disagree are not opposites. Change the color of disagree so it's not so visually overweighted.

The fact that most people seem to like it as it is (or want a fuller menu of reactions) along with the fact that the forum software is a prebuilt package make changes to it a bit of an uphill battle...

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Direct mocking of other users is not allowed. I completely agree with this.

The laugh reaction is, I’m sure, intended for laughing at good natured jokes. The reality is that it is used, more often than not, to laugh at the opinions of others, to mock, and belittle them - just like directly mocking another user.

I truly believe that removing emoji reaction will foster a more respectful community and discourage belittling of the opinions of others. I don’t think it’ll magically make everybody hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I do think it would help.

I’ve had people use the reaction to my opinions or my perspectives; it really sucks and discourages me from participating more.

Personally, I'm in agreement with @Clix Pix, in that I dislike all emojis, and would love to see them all removed.

However, and unfortunately, that is unlikely.

Nevertheless, the point made by the OP - @tweaknmod - re that laughing emoji is valid.

For my part, given that emojis are likely to remain with us, it ought to be possible to devise some sort of emoji to signal that there are two types of laughter in the online world: Laughing with someone and laughing at them, or at their post, signalling contempt, derision and mockery.

Therefore, it should not be beyond the wit of tech specialists to devise an emoji that makes clear that one is is "laughing with" someone, which should allow for an online distinction to be drawn between "laughing with" and the current regrettable iteration which - all too unfortunately often - seems to be used to convey the message that some one is "laughing at" a post, or a perspective, or a person.

 

[Clix Pix]

This whole "reactions" thing more often than not seems to cause a lot more angst and frustration than it serves to enhance many members' enjoyment of participation in a given website-based discussion forum. I don't know, since I have not worked behind the scenes with Xenforo, but it seems to be that, yes, just as when choosing the option of providing or eliminating other features, it would be possible to simply not hit/click/fill in the checkmark box beside the option of using the "reactions" function as a feature on any website which uses Xenforo. A simple clicking/placing a checkmark in a box would either activate it or an absence of said checkmark would eliminate it altogether (from users' view). ?? Kind of like the admin selecting which permissions are available to different categories of members? I may be wrong on this, of course.....

 

[Analog Kid]

For my part, given that emojis are likely to remain with us, it ought to be possible to devise some sort of emoji to signal that there are two types of laughter in the online world: Laughing with someone and laughing at them, or at their post, signalling contempt and mockery.

Therefore, it should not be beyond the wit of tech specialists to devise an emoji that makes clear that one is is "laughing with" someone, which should allow for an online distinction to be drawn between "laughing with" and the current regrettable iteration which - all too unfortunately often - seems to be used to convey the message that some one is "laughing at" a post, or a perspective, or a person.

Personally, I think the ambiguity is the point. There's no blowback. "Oh, you were serious? I misunderstood."

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Personally, I think the ambiguity is the point. There's no blowback. "Oh, you were serious? I misunderstood."

Perhaps.

But, even if it is the point, the way - the manner - that this particular emoji has evolved in online use means that - all too unpleasantly often - it is used as a cheap way to signal that a poster is jeering at, is mocking, what someone else has written and views the post (and poster, by extension, as this, too, is never made clear) with contempt and derision.

Personally, I'd love to see all emojis discarded, or jettisoned.

As that is not likely to happen, I would like to see some clarification - or modification - in how they are used, and in what emojis can be called upon for use.

Thus, for example, as @arkitect suggested in a similar thread (and I am in complete agreement with him), I would like to see the disagree emoji change colour, (from an outraged red to a more measured blue), for I believe that this would contribute to a more moderate tone being taken in debate.

Likewise, if the "laugh" emoji is to continue, I think that it might be a good idea to create a different, separate, emoji, one which would allow one to differentiate between "laughing with" someone, and "laughing at" someone; that, too, could (or would) take some of the sting - the defensiveness and edgy anger - out of some online discussions and debates.

 

[Analog Kid]

Perhaps.

But, even if it is the point, the way - the manner - that this particular emoji has evolved in online use means that - all too unpleasantly often - it is used as a cheap way to signal that a poster is jeering at, is mocking, what someone else has written and views the post (and poster, by extension, as this, too, is never made clear) with contempt and derision.

Personally, I'd love to see all emojis discarded, or jettisoned.

As that is not likely to happen, I would like to see some clarification - or modification - in how they are used, and in what emojis can be called upon for use.

Thus, for example, as @arkitect suggested in a similar thread (and I am in complete agreement with him), I would like to see the disagree emoji change colour, (from an outraged red to a more measure blue), for I believe that this would contribute to a more moderate tone being taken in debate.

Likewise, if the "laugh" emoji is to continue, I think that it might be a good idea to create a different, separate, emoji, one which would allow one to differentiate between "laughing with" someone, and "laughing at" someone; that, too, could (or would) take some of the sting - the defensiveness and edgy anger - out of some online discussions and debates.

My question is how to do you make people use the correct one? If I disagree with you, then click "laugh with", and disagree again-- how is that different from the current situation.

Eliminate the laugh. I can agree with or like a good joke, I don't need a separate laugh.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

My question is how to do you make people use the correct one? If I disagree with you, then click "laugh with", and disagree again-- how is that different from the current situation.

Eliminate the laugh. I can agree with or like a good joke, I don't need a separate laugh.

I agree that the laugh ought to be eliminated, but, should the site owners not wish to do so, I have offered an alternative.

 

[avz]

I didn't know it meant something bad.

Wonder if I ever used it to laugh at something that was funny at the poster thought I was mocking them?

I suppose there is nothing wrong in being a one track minded person.

I am just glad that people are slowly discovering the concept of the "subversive messaging": only because something is not self-evident does not mean that it actually does not exist.

Laughing with me vs. laughing at me.

 

[Sami13496]

If it’s removed, we won’t be able to laugh at all. 😐 Besides, a lot of people here on MR for the drama 🤭

 

[Sami13496]

Also, those people wont stop laughing ”at you” even if the emoji is removed. They will behave like they do anyway. But it’s really their loss, being ignorant and all. We are going to meet all kind of people in our lives, good and bad, I don’t believe removing emoji is the right move. The community should show those people in other ways that their behaviour is not exceptable.

 

[adrianlondon]

How will I know if my jokes are funny? 🤔

 

[Big Bad D]

How far do we go… perhaps remove the reply function??? Ignore is a wonderful functionality when felt appropriate.

 

[icanhazmac]

I’ve had people use the reaction to my opinions or my perspectives; it really sucks and discourages me from participating more.

Seriously?

You would allow the few children on this site who cannot or will not use words discourage you from posting/participating? I am being very serious when I ask, how do you ever leave your home and interact with the world if tiny little emoji on a forum influence your behavior so?

Look at my sig, that is the way to handle the children on this site. Accept the +1 to your reaction score and let fools be fools. Don't give in!!!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

If it’s removed, we won’t be able to laugh at all. 😐

Use words.

Words can let someone know that you find what they have written funny, or that you applaud their wit.

However, when mocking someone (or their posts) in a derisive manner, words can reveal - perhaps all too clearly - what you think, and this may be deemed offensive (as insulting someone directly does go against forum rules).

Thus, I suspect that the laugh emoji allows some members a degree of plausible deniability; they don't have to own their derision, but can safely get away with sniping from the sidelines.

Besides, a lot of people here on MR for the drama 🤭

I should sincerely hope not.

At the very least, I am not here for the "drama".

Besides, there is more than enough drama in the world as it is, without adding to that in the online world.

In any case, I joined because I had just recently purchased an Apple computer, and had a few questions I wished to ask; I stayed because I liked the community.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Also, those people wont stop laughing ”at you” even if the emoji is removed.

No, they won't, this is true.

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.

They will behave like they do anyway.

Yes, but they will not be able to abuse the "laugh" emoji any longer.

But it’s really their loss, being ignorant and all. We are going to meet all kind of people in our lives, good and bad, I don’t believe removing emoji is the right move.

I would argue either for, 1) removing it entirely,

or,

2) refining it so that there are two emojis, one to describe "laugh with" someone or something, and the other to signal that you are "laughing at" someone or something.

The community should show those people in other ways that their behaviour is not exceptable.

Agreed.

What would you suggest?

 

[Sami13496]

I don’t know. Removing the emoji feels wrong somehow. Isn’t it like hiding the problem instead of dealing with it? Maybe people who get insulted should try to change themselves instead, like being more resistent to bullying. 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.

 

[RokinAmerica]

I suppose there is nothing wrong in being a one track minded person.

I am just glad that people are slowly discovering the concept of the "subversive messaging": only because something is not self-evident does not mean that it actually does not exist.

Laughing with me vs. laughing at me.

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".

 

[avz]

I don’t know. Removing the emoji feels wrong somehow.

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

Is it "Subversive Messaging" or inference of intent that may or may not be there.

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."