Facepalm react

[Patti]

Can there be a "sexy sexy eye wiggle" reaction added too?   For posts containing Sir Ian?  Please

[ImpousVileTerror]

Thank you, everyone.  This thread is really shaping up to be quite wonderful!

 

 . . . still, though, seriously.   Facepalm Reaction.  Like, yesterday.  'kay, thanks!

[Hyperstrike]

4 hours ago, Patti said:

Can there be a "sexy sexy eye wiggle" reaction added too?   For posts containing Sir Ian?  Please

 

 

[XaoGarrent]

On 4/12/2020 at 12:04 PM, Blastit said:

Would it actually make for a better forum environment?

Depends on whether you prefer truth or power. If you're a Raymond Cocteau sort of tyrant, than no, it isn't. After all, controlling the ways that people are allowed to express themselves is conducive to that delusional vision of rainbows and unicorn farts.

[Blastit]

37 minutes ago, XaoGarrent said:

Depends on whether you prefer truth or power. If you're a Raymond Cocteau sort of tyrant, than no, it isn't. After all, controlling the ways that people are allowed to express themselves is conducive to that delusional vision of rainbows and unicorn farts.

How is providing users with an explicit tool for passive aggressive dismissal good for truth? It isn't like any of the possible already existing reactions are necessarily correct nor like there isn't already a code of conduct that users must adhere to.

[ImpousVileTerror]

I'm not sure it's inherently passively -aggressive.-   Much like the existing Reaction tools, it can be used in a merely passive capacity.  That is generally the largest benefit of these forms of communication; provide condensed social feedback on material expressed, with minimal impact to the one providing the feedback.

 

Sometimes giving a "Confused" is so much less emotionally draining than dragging oneself in to a conversation with someone who has demonstrated potential for hostility to criticism.

It's not a perfect system, of course, but it does have value.

 

Granted, Facepalm in particular does carry with it a certain stigma which is certainly more conceivably negative than either the Confused or Sad expressions.  But in the absence of a Facepalm, those other Reactions are sometimes used in lieu of, and that muddies their own definitions.

[XaoGarrent]

5 hours ago, Blastit said:

How is providing users with an explicit tool for passive aggressive dismissal good for truth? It isn't like any of the possible already existing reactions are necessarily correct nor like there isn't already a code of conduct that users must adhere to.

I mean, we could just have a downvote function, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be up to Mr. Cocteau's standards either.

 

Really, arguing with people on here is futile. I'd just like to have a way to log my disagreement and go. The alternative is we all just go back to posting /jranger, and that's even less constructive.

[ImpousVileTerror]

Yeah.   I'd say there's far more aggression in the "/jrangers" and "no votes" posts that happen, than in the Reputation reactions. 

[Troo]

[Hyperstrike]

5 hours ago, XaoGarrent said:

I mean, we could just have a downvote function, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be up to Mr. Cocteau's standards either.

 

Really, arguing with people on here is futile. I'd just like to have a way to log my disagreement and go. The alternative is we all just go back to posting /jranger, and that's even less constructive.

Then post /JRANGERPLUS and give your reasoning behind it.

So you have your say, and the JRANGER portion signifies that you're not going to continue in a discussion...

[Dynamo-Joe]

 

[Replacement]

Sorry, I really do not like this idea.

Facepalming people's posts would amount to nothing more than childish derision that the poster cannot easily respond to.

 

Seems like a cowardly way to discredit someone without a need to engage.

[Redlynne]

5 hours ago, Replacement said:

Facepalming people's posts would amount to nothing more than childish derision that the poster cannot easily respond to.

Unless the thread is locked ... people could still post ...

[Replacement]

I want you to seriously consider the optics of saying "hey @Redlynne, I saw your facepalm react and you are wrong!"

 

I would have no idea what part of my post prompted such a response, and I would have to suppose your issues if I wanted to engage with them.  And I would be the one left looking paranoid.

 

I think most importantly though... In that scenario, your reaction is an act of derision.  Sure, there will be some situations where people would use the reaction to commiserate with the poster, but we all know that's the minority use case.

 

I won't support a feature whose main use case is derision. Even moreso when it's intended to skew the social dynamic in favor of online bullies.

 

I would consider pursuing a "no" or "disagree," but never a facepalm.

 

[Doc_Scorpion]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:11 AM, Replacement said:

I want you to seriously consider the optics of saying "hey @Redlynne, I saw your facepalm react and you are wrong!"

 

I would have no idea what part of my post prompted such a response, and I would have to suppose your issues if I wanted to engage with them.

 

On 6/11/2020 at 7:11 AM, Replacement said:

I won't support a feature whose main use case is derision.

And that's different from the "Confused", "Sad", or "Haha" reactions....  how, exactly?  (Narrator voice:  It isn't.)

[Replacement]

8 hours ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

 

And that's different from the "Confused", "Sad", or "Haha" reactions....  how, exactly?  (Narrator voice:  It isn't.)

I can't imagine you think "Confused", "Sad", or "Haha" have the same derisive connotation as a facepalm. All you need to do is read the 2 portions you quoted together to see how much different this is.

 

Edit: Doc, you pretty consistently generalize my opinion down to such a basic degree that you can reframe my attempts at nuance as inconsistency. It makes it feel worthless to give concessions and attempt deeper discussion with you. 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Replacement

[Doc_Scorpion]

21 minutes ago, Replacement said:

Doc, you pretty consistently generalize my opinion down to such a basic degree that you can reframe my attempts at nuance as inconsistency.

On the contrary, my position that you've created a distinction without a difference.  You think I didn't read the two together?  That the quote selection was accidental?  That those reactions aren't already used for derision?  (As are the myriad variants of /jranger.)

One can only have a deeper discussion when there are depths to plumb.

[Replacement]

10 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

On the contrary, my position that you've created a distinction without a difference.  You think I didn't read the two together?  That the quote selection was accidental?  That those reactions aren't already used for derision?  (As are the myriad variants of /jranger.)

One can only have a deeper discussion when there are depths to plumb.

/jranger leaves a post I can quote.  Even responding with a Facepalm picture would leave a post that can be quoted and used to display to other users how this person thought a denigrating picture would excuse them from logic.

Even the very complaint I just levied at you is an example of something I wouldn't have felt and been able to articulate if you just followed me around facepalming.  It's absolutely true that adding a Confused reaction to someone's post creates the same lack of involvement as any other Response.  But no one said the responses as they are are perfect.

 

But, by declaring the current responses as equivalent to a facepalm, you willfully ignore that facepalming is done almost exclusively to mock someone.  We often see people use the Confused react for posts they don't agree with, and it's not perfect.  But it's never been assumed to exist for the sake of declaring "this person is making a dumb declaration."  That's what a facepalm react is, and that's 99% the use case.  It's an embrace of calling someone names, without the ramifications.  While people try to force Confused into that space occasionally, or even Haha, no one thinks these are the primary use cases, and there's a clear difference in how they are intended and how Facepalm would be used.

 

If this is a distinction without a difference, I believe the onus is on you to prove to the Powers That Be why an entire memetic culture views a facepalm as a mocking response but these boards would not.  Failing that, I believe my arguments before your post sufficiently show this is a feature that would do more harm than good.

 

Additional caveats:

1) I'm not thrilled with adding some sort of simplistic "no" Response because it has some of the same engagement issues, plus there's a reason most forums have moved away from downvoting and the negativity implied.  I would still support it over a Facepalm, but at the end of the day, negative reactions are better suited as responses.  

2) As I mentioned at the start, I do not denounce posting a facepalm image as a reaction.  I think it's immature and unhelpful to discussion, but the act of making the post still makes you a participant.  It leaves the person facepalmed the option to tell you "you're being immature and unhelpful."

 

 

[Redlynne]

17 minutes ago, Replacement said:

But it's never been assumed to exist for the sake of declaring "this person is making a dumb declaration."

Well that's a false assumption.

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

Well that's a false assumption.

Clarify, please.  You're saying facepalm is not a derogatory action?

[Redlynne]

2 minutes ago, Replacement said:

Clarify, please.  You're saying facepalm is not a derogatory action?

 

...

 

Seriously?

 

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

2 hours ago, Replacement said:

But it's never been assumed to exist for the sake of declaring "this person is making a dumb declaration."

Well that's a false assumption.

 

Still need help understanding/comprehending/believing what you ACTUALLY wrote?

 

[Bopper]

32 minutes ago, Redlynne said:

Still need help understanding/comprehending/believing what you ACTUALLY wrote?

Before you jump all over him for requesting you to clarify something you quoted, you can try to actually answer what about his statement is a false assumption. Personally, I have never assumed Confuse (which is the reaction Replacement is referring to in that quote) meant the person using that reaction is making a dumb declaration. I assumed they are simply confused about what was stated (I tend to use a lot of numbers, so I'm used to people being confused).

 

With your response, you are actually making the false assumption that the Confuse reaction is only used as a "declaration of the poster making a dumb declaration". If you think that is what the Confuse reaction is only used for, you are incredibly wrong.

[Replacement]

Thank you, @Bopper.

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

 

...

 

Seriously?

 

 

Still need help understanding/comprehending/believing what you ACTUALLY wrote?

 

EDIT: pointlessly dismissive original comment here.  My apologies, it wasn't helpful.

 

Updated version: I'm welcome to debate this further if there's anything more to be said that's not name-calling GIFs, but except for one post I had that got eaten somewhere, I think I've said my piece.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Replacement

[Patti]

I think it's a matter of generalized blankets.  "Never assumed" being the assumption itself.   Something like that?

[Bopper]

3 minutes ago, Patti said:

I think it's a matter of generalized blankets.  "Never assumed" being the assumption itself.   Something like that?

Could be, in which case it's something that is so nitpicky and unrelated to the context of the discussion that it doesn't really bear the need for pointing out. But it's really the over-escalation that followed that was grossly unnecessary. So I dont know...I'm left confused by it all. Luckily I have a reaction I can use to express that without commentary.

 

All this being said, it's fairly obvious the developers will NEVER add a feature that is solely used for derision. And seeing as how this discussion has gone on too long and has only sparked flame wars, I would suggest this topic to be closed. It is no longer useful based on the back and forth I've seen.