I’m a heavy emoji user, texting is such a poor medium for communication, many times people get the wrong message, but with an emoji you’ll get an idea of the face I’m making, so less chance of misunderstanding

I noticed that every time I add an emoji to a comment it gets downvoted, so I tested my theory, wrote a comment without an emoji, got upvotes, went back and added an emoji, got downvotes…

On Reddit people use emojis a lot, on Lemmy I NEVER saw anyone use emojis, my account is new but still for the time I spent here, I never saw the use of emojis

So, is it just me, have you noticed this small detail ? and do you miss emojis the way I do ? 😭

  • HowMany@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We’ve come a long way from cave drawings and hieroglyphics. We’ve developed languages capable of expressing tiny details in amazing clarity; succinctly, pointedly, and without confusion as to their meaning.

    And yet there is a whole new wave of people unable to use those languages correctly or even rudimentarily who drag civilization backwards by returning to hieroglyphics.

    I’m almost of the opinion we’ve reached “peak human” and are now backsliding. Yes, of course it’s self inflicted - how else could we as a species do an ‘about face’ and head back to cave dwelling? However it happens and whomever is responsible, here we are… and we’re losing ground fast.

    And things like emojis are leading the charge.

    • ElGosso [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I keep thinking about this because it’s so fucking funny. “We’ve invented a way to reintroduce some of the emotional nuance innate in vocal communication and add further symbolic references to text!” “My god, you’re an imbecilic caveman! You’re destroying civilization!”

      • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        reintroduce some of the emotional nuance innate in vocal communication

        NOOOO THE MOST EUPHORIC REDDIT NEW ATHEISTS MUST CONVEY IRONIC DETACHMENT AND CONTEMPT FOR EMOTION AT ALL TIMES wojak-nooo

      • Grownbravy [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Language fails us again and again, how often do we have to compare things to other feelings of sensation? Miscommunications? How short do words fall time and time again? A fool believes our words are enough, like a haggard face cant speak volumes with more clarity without a single word being said.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “peak human”

      “Peak human” is being a Reddit-tier pretentious snob that expresses passive-aggressive contempt for living human beings if they use pictures to communicate.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      whomever is responsible

      It’s whoever in this case.

      Sorry, couldn’t resist after a rant like that. :)

      By the way, the trick i used i learned from a reddit comment. Whether you use ‘who’ or ‘whom’ had to do with whether something is being done by them or to them. The use case went like this.

      Someone steps on a worm.

      ‘Who stepped in the worm?’

      ‘You stepped on whom?’

      Maybe they used worm cuz it is similar to whom. Anyway, hope it helps, it sure did me.

      • MrShankles@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I always used “he/him” as a way to figure out if “whom” or “who” is correct. If “whom” is needed, it’s for “him”. If “who” is needed, “he” should be used.

        “For him: For whom” “He did it: Who did it”

        And the ‘m’ in “him” reminds me to use “whom”

        “Who wants ice cream” shouldn’t be answered with “Him wants ice cream”, you would say “He wants ice cream”

        “For whom is this for” : “It’s for him”, not “It’s for he”

        That’s what got me to remember it forevermore

      • HowMany@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A most interesting and enlightening reply. Completely unexpected. This will bear thought. Thank you.

    • adderaline@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ugh. you’ve pressed enough of my buttons to warrant a response.

      We’ve come a long way from cave drawings and hieroglyphics

      the idea that hieroglyphs are in some way inferior to modern writing systems in an objective way is flawed. hieroglyphs were a diverse writing system comprised of phonograms, logograms, and ideograms, and they could be used contextually to record a rich and complex language as fully featured as our own. the ancient Egyptians wrote their dreams, legends, and histories in this text for over 4000 years. the idea that our modern languages are somehow “better” than ancient languages is to misunderstand what language is.

      And yet there is a whole new wave of people unable to use those languages correctly or even rudimentarily who drag civilization backwards by returning to hieroglyphics

      the idea that there is a “”“correct”“” way to use language is flawed. the field of linguistics recognizes a vast diversity of languages, dialects, sociolects, and even idiolects that vary from each other in many interesting ways. collapsing that diversity into a single “correct” way to use language is nonsense, and has historically served to exclude those whose dialect is not supported by powerful institutions. just because people aren’t speaking like you are doesn’t mean they’re speaking wrong, or “rudimentarily”.

      instead of catastrophizing about how new ways of communicating might end the world, as people have done literally since we started to write down things, linguists have studied how and why emojis exist, and, unsurprisingly, its not because people are getting stupider or something like that. its because they’re useful for conveying non-linguistic social information in informal written communication. without the non-verbal queues, vocal tone, and other contextual information that exists in spoken language, emojis are one of many ways to add context that can’t be represented through text alone. tone indicators and emoticons serve similar roles.

      And things like emojis are leading the charge.

      this is cringe. small changes in the structure of our informal written communication are never going to be the big, important thing you seem to think they are. if you’re this passionate about language that you think it can be ruined by funny little pictures, learn some linguistics. nobody who knows anything substantive about language shares your concerns, because they’re too busy studying the interesting new cultural phenomenon and what it might mean for our understanding of human communication.