Just a question, "inappropriate" reaction to a post

[Phil Deakins]

34 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Of course, this doesn't justify going out of my way to cause someone else distress either.

Substitute the phrase 'cause someone else distress' with 'negatively affect someone else's emotions,' and that's exactly how some low-minded people use it here. I don't think it can cause actual distress but, when used that way, it is intended to get right up someone else's nose, possibly upsetting the person. There are examples of it right here in this thread. Even the cause of this thread was an example of it lol.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

40 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Substitute the phrase 'cause someone else distress' with 'negatively affect someone else's emotions,' and that's exactly how some low-minded people use it here. I don't think it can cause actual distress but, when used that way, it is intended to get right up someone else's nose, possibly upsetting the person. There are examples of it right here in this thread. Even the cause of this thread was an example of it lol.

So,  it’s a meta-thread.

[Fionalein]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

So,  it’s a meta-thread.

It can be seen as "premptive absolution" IMHO one purpose of the thread its to get a clear line drawn on what hateful behaviour is accpeted and must be tolerated and what is not accepted anymore. OP forgot that the Lindens can remove anyone from the services without justification, so even if this line is drawn they can later come to the conclusion it is best for the Lab to ban one user anyways. Even if that person never crossed said line but just skirted it... there's still nothing to stop them.

[Phil Deakins]

To be fair to the OP (although I have no reason to be), she has been on the wrong end of some idiotic descisions here (2 that I know of), so, now that she's back as her real self, instead of that disease, forumities, she probably wants to make sure that she's not on the wrong end of bad decisions again. In this case, she wants to make sure that she can intentionally pour scorn on people, by using the laugh inappropriately. She's been practising it in this thread lol.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

It can be seen as "premptive absolution" IMHO one purpose of the thread its to get a clear line drawn on what hateful behaviour is accpeted and must be tolerated and what is not accepted anymore. OP forgot that the Lindens can remove anyone from the services without justification, so even if this line is drawn they can later come to the conclusion it is best for the Lab to ban one user anyways. Even if that person never crossed said line but just skirted it... there's still nothing to stop them.

Let’s presume a situation: user leaves a “confused” or “laugh” reaction to a post. Poster reports the user for it: “they laughed at me!” I doubt such an AR will get much action.

[SueWorthly]

14 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:

Because let that sink in: An adult being offended by an emoji.

A FREAKING DAMN EMOJI!

Honestly, an adult who isn't trusted to handle a built-in emoji option, should probably also not be trusted to hold a drivers liecence or any sharp or heavy object... If something so laughable (pun not intended) is already offensive, then this forum should also ban any form of disagreement and disliking between all residents. And the only acceptable form of posting should consist of cute, happy baby animals. ...Or they should get rid of all the emojis again, if they are weapons of potential offence.

The OP was talking about people that are offended by being even laughed at, after "something "horrible" happened to them inworld" (the OP's example). It's not exactly about disagreeing, and they aren't offended by an emoji, they are offended by what is communicated with it: scorn and laughter at their distressful experiences. Honestly that's pretty understandable. If you attach a laughing sticker on a 9/11 memorial isn't that people are immature and offended by "a freaking damn sticker", but by having their horrible experience ridiculed and labeled with a laugh. Sure, this is just the forum of a virtual world and these are just messages. Yet people inworld can still have bad experiences, suffer and "cry their heart out" writing about them. Isn't that surprising if they aren't happy if you stick a laughing face on those. On the other hand, maybe someone overreacts and there can be misunderstandings too, e.g. someone thinking it was a funny anecdote. Understanding should go in both the ways. But if someone else is insensitive, lacks empathy and puts a laughs on other people's sufferings on purpose, this just shows what kind of person that one is, in front of everyone. I don't think that a moderator has to intervene though, unless perhaps if it's part of a constant harassment or similar circumstances. And I agree that it could be far worse than an emoji reaction.

And now folks you can vent out adding your laughing emoji here 😁.

[Phil Deakins]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Let’s presume a situation: user leaves a “confused” or “laugh” reaction to a post. Poster reports the user for it: “they laughed at me!” I doubt such an AR will get much action. 

It'll get no attention at all after reading the complaint. But, if the person can correctly say that so-and-so laughs scornfully on every post I make - or on most of them - then I think would be taken seriously.

[Syo Emerald]

20 minutes ago, SueWorthly said:

The OP was talking about people that are offended by being even laughed at, after "something "horrible" happened to them inworld" (the OP's example).

I think the quotationmarks on horrible are there for a reason. Many people, often very sensitive ones (one might dare to add overly to that), come to the forum to vent about the "horrible" stuff that happened to them. Things along the lines of: Someone walked onto their parcel, someone clicked their speaking genitals, someone used the RLV that they had enabled, someone "copied" their outfit or getting griefed on a public sandbox is definitly rape...

All in all things, that are definitly not compareable to the death of over 3000 people in a real life terrorist attack. I've not seen anyone here using the laugh emoji, when the issue presented was by objective standarts a serious one. But the above might provoke someone to press it and the OP of that imaginative post might react to that emoji just as heavy as they reacted to whatever happened inworld to them. At least I think thats what I get from this.

The other situation, where the laugh emoji is commonly not used to laugh with someone but about someone, is when someone here comes up with absolutly ridicoulus claims (like: "Freebies hurt the SL economy!").

[Love Zhaoying]

45 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

It'll get no attention at all after reading the complaint. But, if the person can correctly say that so-and-so laughs scornfully on every post I make - or on most of them - then I think would be taken seriously.

I’m curious, how you’re able to know when someone means a laughter emoji “scornfully”? Isn’t part of the issue that the emojis can be ambiguous?

”Sad” could mean either “I am sorry for you” or “your post made me sad”.

”Like” (the heart) could mean “like” or “agree”.

”Thanks” (the trophy) could mean “thank you” or “good answer”.

”Laugh” could mean “funny post” or,  “your post doesn’t make much sense so I’ll just laugh”.

”Confused” could mean “I don’t understand your post” or “your post is so ????? that I want to respond with confusion”.

[Phil Deakins]

@Love Zhaoying

Occasionally I suppose an emoji could be ambigious, but not the laugh. It's pretty obvious when a laugh is intended as scorn. The exception is, perhaps, when, for some reason, a post does make someone laugh (humorously) even though it wasn't written as humour.

23 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

”Laugh” could mean “funny post” or,  “your post doesn’t make much sense so I’ll just laugh”.

A laugh isn't any sort of a sensible response when a post doesn't make much sense. Why would anyone laugh, without comment, as the sole indication that a post doesn't make much sense? Confused is the one for that, or, better still, a post saying that you don't uderstand it, please explain what you mean. A laugh doesn't indicate that a post doesn't make much sense.

[AyelaNewLife]

29 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I’m curious, how you’re able to know when someone means a laughter emoji “scornfully”? Isn’t part of the issue that the emojis can be ambiguous?

Which leads us back to the original question asked in this thread; they can indeed be ambiguous, and it would be silly to read too much into a single reaction. But a pattern of similar usage? Yeah, I think that can be seen as scornful pretty accurately.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Which leads us back to the original question asked in this thread; they can indeed be ambiguous, and it would be silly to read too much into a single reaction. But a pattern of similar usage? Yeah, I think that can be seen as scornful pretty accurately.

There are exceptions. Example, I laugh at most of Klytina’s posts not to be scornful, but because she’s a hoot

[AyelaNewLife]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

There are exceptions. Example, I laugh at most of Klytina’s posts not to be scornful, but because she’s a hoot

Oh, for sure. But Klytana's completely over-the-top melodramatic way of phrasing things is, at least in part, supposed to be funny. (I hope...)

[Luna Bliss]

7 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I was simply pointing out that it's not appropriate for you or me to determine the validity of someone's emotions. 

I agree. But the consequence of this is that it's also not my responsibility to manage someone else's emotions for them.

Totally agree, Ayela -- it goes both ways. We have the rights to our emotional reactions and to express them to someone who is expressing feeling offended. I just didn't like the way Syo was framing the situation so one-sidedly with the problem always resting with the one who feels offended.
Also, there's a difference between a self-protective reaction of an eye-roll or scorn-laugh vs the way SOME use the scorn-laugh on the forum. Typically, those who use the scorn-laugh repeatedly do it with sadistic intent -- they enjoy attempting to make others feel they are stupid, and I've seen little evidence that they are sensitive or have much empathy for others feelings in general.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:

4 hours ago, SueWorthly said:

The OP was talking about people that are offended by being even laughed at, after "something "horrible" happened to them inworld" (the OP's example).

I think the quotationmarks on horrible are there for a reason. Many people, often very sensitive ones (one might dare to add overly to that), come to the forum to vent about the "horrible" stuff that happened to them.

Yes, I agree many people coming to the forum are overly sensitive (like those having a meltdown over losing 2 cents and the like) and need to be confronted.

The problem is that for this OP any concern another has is a "concern". It's a pattern and so I don't trust his narrative about much of anything.

[Phil Deakins]

43 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

they enjoy attempting to make others feel they are stupid, and I've seen little evidence that they are sensitive or have much empathy for others feelings in general.

... or any evidence of being less stupid that the target. Quite the opposite, in fact lol.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

... or any evidence of being less stupid that the target lol.

How is implying someone is stupid any less mean than giving someone a scornful look?

Are you implying that it is okay to be mean to someone that you don't like or have no respect for?  

[Love Zhaoying]

First “pathetic”, now “stupid”. Remember, attack ideas not people..

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

... or any evidence of being less stupid that the target. Quite the opposite, in fact lol.

too true...if you get off on telling other people how stupid they are at least have an IQ over 72... 

[Love Zhaoying]

49 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Also, there's a difference between a self-protective reaction of an eye-roll or scorn-laugh vs the way SOME use the scorn-laugh on the forum. 

I’ve been called out for *sighing* before. 

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

51 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Also, there's a difference between a self-protective reaction of an eye-roll or scorn-laugh vs the way SOME use the scorn-laugh on the forum. 

I’ve been called out for *sighing* before. 

well kitty, you know those lions do have bad breath ;0

[Phil Deakins]

7 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

How is implying someone is stupid any less mean than giving someone a scornful look?

"Implying"? When the best a person can do is post an image to signify scorn, but has no words to explain it, there's no need to imply anything. It's self-evident

 

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

"Implying"? When the best a person can do is post an image to signify scorn, but has no words to explain it, there's no need to imply anything. It's self-evident

 

“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.” - Mark Twain

[LittleMe Jewell]

26 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

"Implying"? When the best a person can do is post an image to signify scorn, but has no words to explain it, there's no need to imply anything. It's self-evident

 

As has already been stated in this thread, it is not always a matter of "has no words to explain it", but rather "thinks no words are needed" - so NO, it is not 'self-evident'.  This is all a matter of OPINION and yours is no better or more correct than mine. 

By saying that someone is not showing "any evidence of being less stupid that the target", you are either implying that they are stupid or flat out saying they are stupid.  How is that any less mean than just rolling your eyes at something or laughing scornfully at them?

 

 

40 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

if you get off on telling other people how stupid they are at least have an IQ over 72

From the lady always telling us to be nice.  You are no better when you drop to this level.  You have no way of KNOWING what anyone's IQ is here, so you are simply throwing insults.  

 

[Luna Bliss]

24 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

From the lady always telling us to be nice.  You are no better when you drop to this level.  You have no way of KNOWING what anyone's IQ is here, so you are simply throwing insults.  

If someone has repeatedly targeted me with a laugh-scorn, as they have here and on another forum, and I feel like telling them what an idiot they are when the scorn-laugh topic comes up, I will do so. It has felt like stalking to me, and it appears Phil has at the very least felt annoyed by the behaviour as well.
Never said I was an angel, never said I would not push back and insult likewise when insults are hurled at me, and my belief is that if someone repeatedly insults others by telling them (with an emoticon or otherwise) that they are stupid then they are, by definition, the stupid one.
If you can't deal with that, then move along please.