The laughing emoji

[Armchair Cyclist]

Lots of us like to put the occasional joke into our posts, and the laughing response that is offered to us is nice to see as an appreciation of that.

But the same laugh response is also frequently used as a response to a serious opinion. In that case, it seems to me that it is a level of rudeness in response that could not be said in the light of our "Civility is compulsory" rule. It is essentially not only saying that the poster, and/or their opinion, is laughable, or is a joke, but is an invitation to ridicule somebody's opinion without even making an effort to rebut it.

In the case of a joke being made, to like it is to appreciate the humour, ie to think it deserves a laugh. Thus it seems to me that the laughing emoji is redundant, and serves no purpose (other than looking nice) to give plausible denial to those being uncivil in a particularly lazy manner. My thinking therefore is to propose to the administrators that the facility of the LOL emoji be removed.

Thoughts?

 

[Sciatic]

They may happen in that problematic way sometimes, but I certainly wouldn't want to eliminate it. There are some clever commentors on here and when someone says something hilarious the laughing emoji is the appropriate response. Whereas a "like" can just mean acknowledgement, enjoyment, or agreement with the facts mentioned in the previous comment.

 

[tobydawq]

Don't do it. You can do it on Facebook where it's a big problem and always used in a negative way and is a sign of the sadness of the world. Here, it is also being used in that way at times, but not as often, I don't think.

And I don't think it's redundant.

 

[Netserk]

Indeed.

While I could do without all the reactions, I would much prefer if the thumps up were the only option. The mocking usage of the laughing reaction adds no value.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Maybe if it would be possible to only make it available to Sandisfan, otherwise I'd be against a change.

 

[hrotha]

Having a serious post laughed at by certain people is a badge of honour

Ultimately, if they want to mock your opinion they can do it with words too without breaking any rules. Yes it can be rude but I don't think it's much of a problem

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Having a serious post laughed at by certain people is a badge of honour

Ultimately, if they want to mock your opinion they can do it with words too without breaking any rules.

No, they can't. They can disagree, and rebut, and enter into proper discussion becoming of intelligent adults. They cannot mock a poster (and mocking an opinion without doing that is a very fine line to tread). But the sarcastic use of the LOL emoticon does precisely that.

@SHaines, @CParsons : your opinions would be appreciated (as are everyone else's of course)

 

[AmRacer]

Who decides which posts are "serious" or "laughable"?
Compare with "What's trolling".

@Froome will win his 5th before Pogi does it.

1 and 1 is equal with 1

 

[hrotha]

No, they can't. They can disagree, and rebut, and enter into proper discussion becoming of intelligent adults. They cannot mock a poster (and mocking an opinion without doing that is a very fine line to tread). But the sarcastic use of the LOL emoticon does precisely that.

They can absolutely do that, they do it all the time, and it's a good thing it can be done. You need to resist the urge to overpolice the place

 

[AmRacer]

If all posts are deemed serious, then only 👍 should be available. But then "trolling" posts are serious as well.

 

[Peyroteo94]

If people can't tolerate an emoji, something is really wrong with them.

 

[Salvarani]

It should not be removed. Some people are funny on here.

And sometimes laughing at things being said is the only appropiate thing to react with.

 

[Peyroteo94]

They can absolutely do that, they do it all the time, and it's a good thing it can be done. You need to resist the urge to overpolice the place

This.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Who decides which posts are "serious" or "laughable"?
Compare with "What's trolling".

@Froome will win his 5th before Pogi does it.

1 and 1 is equal with 1

And removing the laughing emoji removes the need to distinguish between them. If all one can do by instant response is a thumbs up, then any other response requires reasoned thought and expression of ideas. Almost as though this were a site for discussion.

 

[RedheadDane]

I don't think we should take laughing emojis too seriously.
Yes, they can be used for mocking, but they can also be used for - well - their intended purpose; showing appreciation for a funny joke.

 

[AmRacer]

funny joke

And this is subjective

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Many people have said that a laughing emoji can be used for appreciating a joke. That is undoubtedly true. But when the post is a joke, a thumbs up also communicates that.

That being the case, what other merit does the LOL emoji have that compensates for its misuse?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Let me put it another way: does anyone believe that using a laughing emoji purely to mock is ever acceptable in a discussion forum in which treating each other with civility is a requirement?

 

[AmRacer]

Many people have said that a laughing emoji can be used for appreciating a joke. That is undoubtedly true. But when the post is a joke, a thumbs up also communicates that.

That being the case, what other merit does the LOL emoji have that compensates for its misuse?

When an emoji is "misused", is highly subjective.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

When an emoji is "misused", is highly subjective.

Sometimes it is: sometimes the intention to ridicule is very obvious, and yet if challenged over it the person who posted it has recourse to claiming misinterpretation. I do not believe that we should be offering easy ways to circumvent the rules and standards expected.


And that subjectivity is why I believe it should be removed: it means that there is not an issue as to whether it is being used supportively or mockingly if it is not there at all.

If the intention is to do anything other than appreciate and agree, then the removal of (and I am coming around to Netserk's proposal here) any automatic response other than the thumbs up requires some thought and reasoning. Does anyone believe that is a bad thing?

 

[RedheadDane]

If the intention is to do anything other than appreciate and agree, then the removal of (and I am coming around to Netserk's proposal here) any automatic response other than the thumbs up requires some thought and reasoning. Does anyone believe that is a bad thing?

Yes, I do believe that would be a bad thing.
To go to the other end of the scale; the crying emoji.
Sometimes - unfortunately - riders die, and it gets reported here. In such a case, a thumbs up is just wrong! However, I know that it can be hard to find the right words in such a case.

And that is why I believe it should be removed: it means that there is not an issue as to whether it is being used supportively or mockingly.

It seems the majority of us disagrees with the notion that it should be removed.

 

[Red Rick]

I'm kinda with Netserk on this one, though I also slightly wonder if it doesn't also slightly prevent more trolling by providing an outlet that can't be responded to.

That said, I don't particularly feel strongly about it.

 

[Netserk]

Even when non-malicious, it can apparently still be quite annoying.

@noob why are you always laughing at people whenever they say anything about Almeida?

It's honestly really annoying.

 

[SHaines]

Lots of us like to put the occasional joke into our posts, and the laughing response that is offered to us is nice to see as an appreciation of that.

But the same laugh response is also frequently used as a response to a serious opinion. In that case, it seems to me that it is a level of rudeness in response that could not be said in the light of our "Civility is compulsory" rule. It is essentially not only saying that the poster, and/or their opinion, is laughable, or is a joke, but is an invitation to ridicule somebody's opinion without even making an effort to rebut it.

In the case of a joke being made, to like it is to appreciate the humour, ie to think it deserves a laugh. Thus it seems to me that the laughing emoji is redundant, and serves no purpose (other than looking nice) to give plausible denial to those being uncivil in a particularly lazy manner. My thinking therefore is to propose to the administrators that the facility of the LOL emoji be removed.

Thoughts?

Thanks for weighing in, everyone. We don't have any plans to remove emojis from the forums. While I recognize that there's more value in human being writing out their thoughts to add much needed context, many folks also like the speed and ease of use of conveying a thought with emoji.

If we get a groundswell of support demanding their removal, we'd absolutely look at that. As it stands, I suspect they will stick around.

 

[tobydawq]

Many people have said that a laughing emoji can be used for appreciating a joke. That is undoubtedly true. But when the post is a joke, a thumbs up also communicates that.

Not at all in the same way.