Skip to main content

Say it with a smile?

Social media is full of pitfalls, where understanding is concerned.  Face to face encounters with others involves a great deal of facial expression, hand gestures, body language. In short, emotion matters.   Our body language tells much more than the words we utter.

Of course, we can use emojis in our messages -  or we can add kisses, xx, after our abrupt response, softening the impact of, say, a disagreement.   There are a hundred and one ways of saying 'sorry', but how do you say it 'as if you mean it'?



See what I mean :) ?   I wasn't rude :) Do take care :)

Beware of negative emojis?  Negative emojis are more likely to be poorly processed.

A new study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behaviour,  now shows that men and women process emojis differently.  On the whole, it seems that women rate negative emojis to be more negative than do men  :(.  While positive emojis :) are about equally interpreted.

Some of us haven't got much further than using the old standard smiley face ":)".  But now people respond with hundreds of different kinds of emoji in an attempted substitute for body language.

We often see gifs being used for laughter in place of the old LOL.   Does that still mean laugh out loud?

Many emojis are used as pacifiers.  LOL is often used at the end of almost all phrases.  Know what I mean lol?  Or more expressively a heart.  They don't really mean to love you.  They are appealing to you? or are they? What are they doing?










Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown