SMILIES pro versus con
The format of pure text with which we attempt to communicate here is limited due to the absence of nuance provided via in-real-life speech. Non-verbal cues like hand gestures as well as the emphasis placed on the tone of certain words and phrases can contain as much, if not more meaning, in a normal speech-based conversation, than the words themselves. How do we compensate for this lack of nuance in a text-based format? How does the use of [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] factor into this?
[COLOR="Navy"]Pro: [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] could be an indicator of these non-verbal communication elements, IE “I was only joking” or “Are you crazy?” etc.
Con: [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] could be an indicator that people have lost the ability to communicate meanings strictly through the use of the English language. [/COLOR]
Given that we have the ability to format text in order to emphasize words approximately the way they would be spoken, I favor the Con position, that is, people would be better served by the use of proper English sentences than by pre-packaged imitations of human emotion. Do poets not express emotion through words?
Regarding the tendency of people to mask their true emotions, or purposefully express false emotions, this will occur both in real life and on the internet, however, it shouldn’t be as easy as clicking a fake emotion-button. That degrades us all, as human beings.
There is a third option:
[COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]I am aware that [COLOR="SandyBrown"]smilies[/COLOR] annoy some people, so I will increase my use of them for that sole purpose: my ability to communicate is not a factor when using smilies.[/COLOR] :p :finger: :donut: :noevil: :nadkick:
Fuck poets (I'm a poet, BTW). A picture is worth a 1,000 words! :p
:typing: :rattat: :rtfm: :smashfrea :hide:
Pro: smilies were invented at my alma mater.
:idea: :thumb2:
While I will grant that, at least to some extent, "we" have lost the ability to communicate meaning soley through the use of written words, I must say that a purely written communication does indeed leave much to be left to the imagination of the reader. Without the tone and other nonverbal language, some things can be easily misinterpreted.
Or maybe I just haven't figured out how to express sarcasm correctly without the use of nonverbal "language."
Well, Flint, even though you seem to choose not to use smilies, you make use of an even more annoying method of emphasis (text color) in an attempt to make your point.
Interesting.
The format of pure text . . .
Given that we have the ability to format text in order to emphasize words approximately the way they would be spoken
So what you're saying is that if one can't express what one intends in "plain" text then it's OK to change the text in certain ways, but not to actually add something to the text. For that matter, where does punctuation fit in? Don't we use punctuation all the time to give clues to the readers about what we intend, clues that we presume would be present aurally and in body language if we were speaking the same words? What's the difference between using "!" to indicate a sense of shock and using :eek: ?
You're also assuming that people will pick up the cues from spoken words. It doesn't always happen. Some people can't figure out what's going on if you hit them over the head with a 2x4, much less a smilie.
people would be better served by the use of proper English sentences
I'll agree with this. Because you're writing something in an informal context on the Internet is no reason to get all loopy with your spelling and your grammar. Having said that, I gave up being a grammar nazi a long time ago because life's just too short. (I do occasionally point something out if it results in some kind of double entendre that amuses me.)
That degrades us all, as human beings.
You're being hyperbolic I hope. I personally use the smilies for entertainment value. Although sometimes in the wrong hands they can devolve into stupidity, I can't make a case for "degrading." If it's that bad for you I can't see how you can stand to continue reading The Cellar. (Unless, that is, you're just into degradation. In which case, have fun. :right: )
maybe I just haven't figured out how to express sarcasm correctly without the use of nonverbal "language."
This isn't a problem for me, as I
never overtly indicate the use of sarcasm (neither on the internet nor in-real-life). I prefer a dry presentation in which the meaning is left up to the wits of the listener/reader. To me, over-presentation of sarcasm ruins the joke.
even though you seem to choose not to use smilies, you make use of an even more annoying method of emphasis (text color) in an attempt to make your point
Yes, I make use of bold print and italics to indicate verbal tone. And, yes, I also occasionally make use of color/size formatting to call attention to key points/phrases. I developed that habit as a system administrator, a position in which clear and specific communication with my users is crucial.
I will take note of the fact that you are annoyed by text formatting, but no changes to my posting style are planned at this time.
This one time? SteveDallas was a grammar Nazi with me. Remember that, SD? ;) Ya old lady, ya.
For that matter, where does punctuation fit in?
Punctuation is a part of the English language.
I can't make a case for "degrading."
My point was regarding an atrophy of the ability to express genuine emotion through the written word, due to the quick fix of a cheap substitute. This would be a negative trend for humanity. (We are already sending top executives back to basic grammar classes, because they can't compose an e-mail without using chat-speak.)
If it's that bad for you I can't see how you can stand to continue reading The Cellar.
Who said anything was "bad" for me? Why do we have to slap value judgments on everything?
Why do we have to slap value judgments on everything?
Coz deep down, we all want to be 'right'?
Who said anything was "bad" for me? Why do we have to slap value judgments on everything?
Ahem.
You did. Yes, YOU! - There in the last row, smirking with your gang banger wanna be buddies. And I quote:
I favor the Con position, that is, people would be better served by the use of proper English sentences than by pre-packaged imitations of human emotion. Do poets not express emotion through words?
Regarding the tendency of people to mask their true emotions, or purposefully express false emotions, this will occur both in real life and on the Internet, however, it shouldn't’t be as easy as clicking a fake emotion-button. That degrades us all, as human beings.
Saying that something "degrades us all as human beings" is making a value judgment and a negative one, at that - unless you consider it a
good thing for human beings to degrade themselves.
This is not a poetry forum. It is a message board. At times, people
have posted creative works or essays here. I have done so myself, and our esteemed tw is a master of the political essay.
But most of what goes on here is a form of communication between posters. We are not writing works of literature or even technical reports. We are responding to the comments others have made.
In normal human communication, a great deal of what goes on is non verbal. I have never liked talking about serious matters on the telephone, for example, because I want to look the other person in the eye. see what their body posture is, etc.
But even on the telephone, one can hear much just from the person's tone of voice. Is it hesitant. teasing, a whisper, or a scream?
Many message boards or chat groups consider posting in all caps to be the equivalent of yelling at someone. It is a small step from posting in all caps to adding an angry emoticon at the end of your message.
I might equally argue that posting in bold or colored print is a cheap way out and that a good writer should be able to make herself understood without resorting to such subterfuge.
Still, as you have implied earlier, a writer must gear his writing to his audience. If the audience consists of a bunch of high school drop outs with the attention span of a fly, an eloquently worded e-mail in the style of Tolstoy will have little impact on them.
On a message board, the participants are taking part in the new art of written conversation. We can't hear the nuance of the words, and our readers are similarly at loss to hear the inflection in which we respond, thus the emoticon.
I can't imagine being convinced that italics are of less communicative value than animated cartoon faces. Am I to believe that every person posting the same [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIE[/COLOR] has experienced an identical emotion, or, that they have the desire to express an identical emotion? I find [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] to be counter-productive to substantive communication.
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
In the context of this discussion, I actually don't understand what you - a person with the board name of Flint - mean. Your italics might well be my bold print; your bold, my italic. Commonly, bold print is used for emphasis, but I can't be certain that you and I share this same premise After all, you might be one of those high school drop outs I referred to earlier.
I will, however, assume that we both use bold print for the sake of emphasis. In that case your second sentence is directly aimed at the reader as an individual. The third sentence questions the reader's intelligence (her ability to understand). The fourth sentence questions the reader's ability to understand the subject being discussed, and the fifth sentence is a plea for personal understanding. The first and final sentences makes no sense to me, although they might to you.
I am playing devil's advocate here since I actually feel that the use of bold or italic print can be useful in conveying meaning. However, the use of colored print is more annoying than any emoticon. It draws one's attention to the word and not the content.
Do you understand what I mean? :cool:
Do you understand what I mean?:confused:
Do you understand what I mean?:finger:
Do you understand what I mean?:crazy:
Do you understand what I mean?:bonk:
Do you understand what I mean?:smashfrea
neither emoticans or coloured (note correct spellling) text are of much use to the partially sighted....
Oh goody. Another discussion about how to have discussions. :zzz:
I shouldn't make the clone thread: "SIMILIES pro vs con"
Should I?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
NO, could ya'all please 'splain it again?
There's nothing wrong with using smilies. They are just another toy to use in the sandbox.
If you don't like them, don't use them, but please get that stick out of your ass.
There's nothing wrong with using smilies.
I tried to present this beyond the level of
wrong or
bad.
please get that stick out of your ass
"First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye"
I tried to present this beyond the level of wrong or bad.
No, you didn't. You came right out and said they degrade the user's humanity. I haver no problem with you hating smilies. Go ahead and hate them, but please don't tell me that you presented the topic neutrally when you used a negatively loaded term like "degrading to the user's humanity." :eyebrow:
@marichiko: No, I didn't say that. I didn't say I hate smilies, and I didn't say that the use of smilies always constitues a degradation of the user's humanity. Read the words more carefully, and in context.
What I'm driving at is that real life is more nuanced than black and white. I didn't say I was neutral, clearly I stated an opinion, but it wasn't am articficially polarized opinion, it was an invitation to a substantive discussion, IE how are advances in technology changing the way people communicate?
@marichiko: No, I didn't say that. I didn't say I hate smilies, and I didn't say that the use of smilies always constitues a degradation of the user's humanity. Read the words more carefully, and in context.
What I'm driving at is that real life is more nuanced than black and white. I didn't say I was neutral, clearly I stated an opinion, but it wasn't am articficially polarized opinion, it was an invitation to a substantive discussion, IE how are advances in technology changing the way people communicate?
Well, go back and read post no. lucky 13, and then maybe we can talk. I'll wait. A minute or two, anyhow.
I find [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] to be counter-productive to substantive communication.
You are counter-productive to substantive communication. And your friends. And your little dog too.
Nyaah.
:p
See, the smilie made that point much better than just the text alone.
"First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye"
Is there some corollary to Godwin's Law that references biblical quoting and/or allusions?
There is a third option:
[COLOR="DeepSkyBlue"]I am aware that [COLOR="SandyBrown"]smilies[/COLOR] annoy some people, so I will increase my use of them for that sole purpose: my ability to communicate is not a factor when using smilies.[/COLOR] :p :finger: :donut: :noevil: :nadkick:
:beer:
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Do you understand what I mean?
Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.:p
*wonders what the guy with the big ears, is doing with that guy from David Lynches "Eraserhead"*
for what it's worth I am pro-smiley as long as they are used to actually more fully articulate a point, as the subtile body language is beyond my capabilities to capture using text alone.
Yes, cowhead, I agree that there is a need for communicating these nuances. Although, I'm not convinced that smilies are the best solution.
I shouldn't make the clone thread: "SIMILIES pro vs con"
Should I?
What about
Silmarillion prose versus Khan?
(really
geek it up!)
I've a stomach ache. I blame it on this non-thread.
Deconstruction. That's what they are all about. Or, quasi-deconstruction.
Quote from Flint's post #24:
Originally Posted by keryx
There's nothing wrong with using smilies.
I tried to present this beyond the level of wrong or bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keryx
please get that stick out of your ass
"First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye"
Was there some problem with the length of my post that you couldn't post the quotes from it completely? I know how you like all your posts taken in their entirety to keep the context and nuance relevant.
I said:There's nothing wrong with using smilies. They are just another toy to use in the sandbox.
Which means that like most things they are a tool to be used good or ill by the person that uses them. They in themselves have no good/evil or right/wrong.
I said:If you don't like them, don't use them, but please get that stick out of your ass.
Which means I like smilies, I think they are fun. I don't think anyone should be obliged to like them or use them, but I think that someone who does protest so loudly regarding them has lost a sense of fun.
What a pity.
@keryx: I think full quotes are not necesary. Anyone can scroll up and read your post in it's entirity. I don't shorten quotes to change their meaning, I do it to specify which part I am responding to. If I had a comment on the entirity of your post I would have quoted it in full. I read, and understood your post, and not expressly acknowledging certain parts does not constitue a disagreement on my part with the parts I didn't quote. In other words, when I agree with you, there is no need to comment. A useful discussion arrives at an agreement by hashing out the points where a disagreement is percieved. It's a back-and-forth thing.
And again, what you are referring to with the suggestive phrase "protests so loudly" is that I have strong feelings against smilies or the use thereof, which I don't, as evidenced by the fact that I never said I did. If I had said that, you can quote me.
See, that's a joke. Get it? I'm turning the thing you got huffy about into a fun thing. As it turns out, fun and humor are subjective things. Different people will not experience them in the same way. And since we cannot read each other's minds theough the internet, nobody can determine whether another person is having fun or not, without projecting their own point-of-view on the other person.
And since we cannot read each other's minds theough the internet, nobody can determine whether another person is having fun or not, without projecting their own point-of-view on the other person.
Hense the use of smilies so there can be no misunderstanding as just to how something that's written is to be taken.
PS. Your joke went over my head...:p
@DiscoFever: You caught the funnier concept, though (smilies as a solution to the dilemma).
I can't imagine being convinced that italics are of less communicative value than animated cartoon faces. Am I to believe that every person posting the same [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIE[/COLOR] has experienced an identical emotion, or, that they have the desire to express an identical emotion? I find [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] to be counter-productive to substantive communication.
That's nice.
I find you to be both:
[LIST]
[*]counter-productive to substantive communication, and
[*]one of
these.[/LIST]
And
[COLOR="Red"]that[/COLOR] is why vBulletin has an ignore function. You can join the other AGers there. Goodbye.
Once again, I find it curious that people feel the need to announce that they are ignoring you. To the person being ingnored, nothing actually happens, it's a total non-event. Even funnier, though, is when the people who make such a big fuss about letting you know that they are ignoring you continue to respond to your posts. Something doesn't add up there, does it?
I guess I'm supposed to care what Maui Nick thinks? I should feel bad about myself, as a person, because Maui Nick doesn't like me? Becuase Maui Nick doesn't wish to participate in a substantive conversation, and wishes instead to be insulting and add nothing to the discussion, I should take that as a statement on me? Very illogical.
Remember, Maui Nick, you can never ever address me again, or I will know that you didn't really ignore me.
i think smilies are simply overused.
:sniff:
hmmmmmm "overused" huh? That's interesting because it seems to imply that you feel that there is an appropriate level of usage or that in certain situations usage would be more appropriate. When, how often, or under what circumstances are you "okay" with smilie usage? (or, was you post just a joke, beacuse you used a smilie in it?)
I think that smilies are the first part of the new universal language. I happened upon
this thread in a Bosnian forum in Sarajevo, and found many of the same overused smilies that we use on the Cellar. :D
how does one just happen upon a foreign language forum in a bombed-out city?
You're just fighting Toffler.
The thread contains pictures of a hill that I heard about on the Daily Show. Some archaeologists are claiming that it is actually a gigantic pyramid, based on things like: it has four flat sides, with sharpish edges, in North-South-East-West orientation, satellite imaging, and they found a tunnel leading inside.
Jon Stewart was making fun of their inability to speak in layman's terms. Probably not fair if they are Bosnian archaelogists and never learned the layman's terms at all.
The problem isn't smilies under or over-use. Or using full-quotes. Or the use of text formatting. The real point of the discussion should be regarding how effective is our textual communication. In internet discussions you're not only crippled by the well known fact that text doesn't convey emotion (one of the reasons smilies propogate), but it's also because it's one-way communication and you can't get feedback as you express your point. Which leads us to a lesser known problem...
People like to talk... they don't like to write. Most people will talk all day as long as you give them space to express their view. But when typing people want to write as SHORT a post as possible. But brevity sacrifices completeness-of-message.
And then you have to compound that with the prloblem that if *do* write long posts most people will just skip your message entirely, or only read half of it. So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Since you're screwed anyhow, go ahead and use smilies. At least you'll have pretty pictures to look at.
*shrug*
:neutral:
Uh Riddil, could you sum that up for us? :D
[COLOR="Navy"]Pro: [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] could be an indicator of these non-verbal communication elements, IE “I was only joking” or “Are you crazy?” etc.
Con: [COLOR="Orange"]SMILIES[/COLOR] could be an indicator that people have lost the ability to communicate meanings strictly through the use of the English language. [/COLOR]
Given that we have the ability to format text in order to emphasize words approximately the way they would be spoken, I favor the Con position, that is, people would be better served by the use of proper English sentences than by pre-packaged imitations of human emotion. Do poets not express emotion through words?
I say it's all about the context. Indicators of tone like smilies function rather as
furagana in Japanese comic books -- anything from an indicator of the desired pronunciation of a term written in kanji to something like a footnote, all crammed into the space between lines of text. It can carry parenthetical comments or even convey the punchline to a joke, though Japanese humor tends more to sustained absurdity than to punchlines.
Cold print alone can lead one to some very negative interpretations about your interlocutor, especially in conversational fora like chatrooms, where tone indicators are really needed, especially in a roomful of smartalecks. Now some people deserve every bit of opprobrium you can heap on them, but a great many do not, and it's harder to be sure of this from text alone.
BBS's have a manner of expression that is more like formal composition, in which one may eschew the shorthand of smilies for a more elaborated and precise, less stereotyped mode of expression. Font and color changes are less like composing essays than like composing text for posters. They are effective -- for posters. They don't get used as much because they're more involved and thus less understood by the not-so-savvy users, who are in any case concentrating more on composing the sentences than coloring them.
I like these smileys. They're tasty (and Crohn's proof).
~snip
You're also assuming that people will pick up the cues from spoken words. It doesn't always happen. Some people can't figure out what's going on if you hit them over the head with a 2x4, much less a smilie.
I think I am the perfect example of why emoticons should be used. I obviously don't have enough
aject...in my .....
ive.
