I'm shook - the truth about ASUS North America. PAX West 2022

[Vishera]

20 hours ago, VanLuong said:

I didn't expect to see this, but am now so disappointed I'm legit just going to never buy their stuff again. This is the senior manager of their OPBG division on his own personal Instagram making fun of the deaf community at PAX West. I have a deaf younger sibling myself, and the fact that this Ernest person stood there and filmed them to mock them is absolutely sickening.

 

What a disappointment and seriously what a scumbag. I hope this ends up on the WAN show and that they expose this guy

This post is basically Twitter people meet LTT Forums...

 

10 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

"They are so excited :emoji:"

Saying people are excited is not disparaging.  Is it?

So is the problem the emoji?  Does that emoji really imply any malice?


Is the a real issue or just another overblown witchhunt?

Either this is someone doing a really poor job of mocking people, or it's someone who saw people that were in some way disabled, but were excited about technology and wanted to share that enthusiasm.  

I remember back in the day, people used to contact the person in question privately  before blowing them up in public or online....

I completely agree with you.

[ToboRobot]

14 minutes ago, Roswell said:

 

 

It implies that he thinks deaf people look funny.

 

Face with Tears of Joy Emoji (emojipedia.org)
"

A yellow face with a big grin, uplifted eyebrows, and smiling eyes, each shedding a tear from laughing so hard. Widely used to show something is funny or pleasing. "

If you want to see malice, I can understand that, but I can also see and understand the possibility that this is simply someone showing something on social media they think is cool.  And some people want to attack that because the internet can be a cesspool.

What is funny?  Is funny always bad?  Is it bad to be funny, or is it bad to say it's not ok to say something is funny because that signals that the funny thing is bad?

But if you think about the word funny it can mean humorous.  It can a strange, unexpected or hard to understand things.  In this context, to someone who doesn't sign it is difficult to understand.  But even saying something is funny isn't an attack or an insult per say, although it can be used for cheating.

[20220914]

40 minutes ago, Roswell said:

 

 

It’s the emoji. Typical “look how goofy these deaf people look while they communicate” nonsense.

 

Imagine captioning a person in a wheelchair going up an accessibility ramp to a concert or something and using the crying laughing emoji saying he must be excited.

 

It implies that he thinks deaf people look funny.

 

100% 

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, ToboRobot said:

Face with Tears of Joy Emoji (emojipedia.org)
"

A yellow face with a big grin, uplifted eyebrows, and smiling eyes, each shedding a tear from laughing so hard. Widely used to show something is funny or pleasing. "

If you want to see malice, I can understand that, but I can also see and understand the possibility that this is simply someone showing something on social media they think is cool.  And some people want to attack that because the internet can be a cesspool.

What is funny?  Is funny always bad?  Is it bad to be funny, or is it bad to say it's not ok to say something is funny because that signals that the funny thing is bad?

But if you think about the word funny it can mean humorous.  It can a strange, unexpected or hard to understand things.  In this context, to someone who doesn't sign it is difficult to understand.  But even saying something is funny isn't an attack or an insult per say, although it can be used for cheating.

The emoji is exclusively used to imply humor. Deaf people communicating isn’t something to laugh at.

 

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp?

 

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

This post is basically Twitter people meet LTT Forums...

What does being a decent human and not laughing at disabled people have to do with Twitter?

 

You know damn well you wouldn't come across a disabled person in public and start laughing at them. Yet, because you're on the internet, you need to fill that contrarian void inside and somehow find a way to equate calling out poor behavior with political alignment.

[ToboRobot]

8 minutes ago, Roswell said:

The emoji is exclusively used to imply humor. Deaf people communicating isn’t something to laugh at.

 

Is this really that difficult of a concept to grasp?

 

What does being a decent human and not laughing at disabled people have to do with Twitter?

 

 

Apparently it's not exclusively used to communicate laughing at people (with malicious intent).

Is it really so hard to understand that other people have their own opinions and they may conflict with yours.

You are saying someone is laughing at deaf people and are calling them disabled, which seems kinda rude to me, considering they are communicating just fine with signing.  By trying to defend people, who may not need or want it, you have implied they are disabled.  

it's an emoji. lol

[Roswell]

15 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Apparently it's not exclusively used to communicate laughing at people (with malicious intent).

Good thing that's what I said then, huh? In case you need to refer to what I actually said:

 

29 minutes ago, Roswell said:

The emoji is exclusively used to imply humor. Deaf people communicating isn’t something to laugh at.

 

15 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Is it really so hard to understand that other people have their own opinions and they may conflict with yours.

The video in question presents zero opinion. 

 

15 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

You are saying someone is laughing at deaf people and are calling them disabled

The video literally uses a laughing emoji directed at deaf people. No amount of your mental gymnastics is going to change that basic fact, lol.

 

15 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

which seems kinda rude to me, considering they are communicating just fine with signing.  By trying to defend people, who may not need or want it, you have implied they are disabled.  

Deafness is absolutely a disability. Legally speaking, it's covered by ADA, Social Security, and all other kinds of disability law. Medically speaking, their hearing is... disabled. Therefore, they have a disability.

 

 

[Vishera]

3 hours ago, Roswell said:

The emoji is exclusively used to imply humor.

You have been proven wrong:

5 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Face with Tears of Joy Emoji (emojipedia.org)
"

A yellow face with a big grin, uplifted eyebrows, and smiling eyes, each shedding a tear from laughing so hard. Widely used to show something is funny or pleasing. "

That's a neutral and objective source of information about Emojis...

 

3 hours ago, Roswell said:

What does being a decent human and not laughing at disabled people have to do with Twitter?

 

You know damn well you wouldn't come across a disabled person in public and start laughing at them.

What is your theory based off?, The Emoji argument doesn't hold water.

It leaves a lot of room for doubt.

[Roswell]

19 minutes ago, Vishera said:

You have been proven wrong:

That's a neutral and objective source of information about Emojis...

 

What is your theory based off?, The Emoji argument doesn't hold water.

It leaves a lot of room for doubt.

It would probably serve you better in your future debates to actually read the (laughably suspect) citation you're hinging your argument on:

 

 

You know what it's used for, you're just being contrarian to be contrarian.

 

If you want more "sources", they're freely available on the first page of Google. Though, they probably won't support your mental gymnastics:

 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/emoji/face-with-tears-of-joy-emoji/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_with_Tears_of_Joy_emoji

 

[Vishera]

1 minute ago, Roswell said:

It would probably serve you better in your future debates to actually read the (laughably suspect) citation you're hinging your argument on:

 

You are cherry picking whatever contributes to your narrative and ignores anything that may prove otherwise.

 

Let's start with the name of the emoji:  Face with Tears of Joy Emoji

Also there is the pleasing part in the source you used: "Widely used to show something is funny or pleasing."

 

It is valid to think that there are people who see this emoji, search it to see what it means , see the name and the description and then use it to express tears of joy.

Therefore it's is reasonable to think that the ASUS guy was happy to see how excited the person was in the video and it filled him with joy and pride.

[Roswell]

2 minutes ago, Vishera said:

You are cherry picking whatever contributes to your narrative and ignores anything that may prove otherwise.

I'm literally highlighting the contents of the "neutral and objective source" you used to say I had been proven wrong. 

 

Clearly I wasn't wrong. Obviously you didn't read it. Now you're moving goalposts once you realized you were wrong.

 

Take the L.

[Vishera]

36 minutes ago, Roswell said:

I'm literally highlighting the contents of the "neutral and objective source" you used to say I had been proven wrong. 

 

Clearly I wasn't wrong. Obviously you didn't read it. Now you're moving goalposts once you realized you were wrong.

Whether i am right or wrong about this, your theory still leaves room for doubt.

Let's talk about the Rolling on the Floor Laughing Emoji's.

 

1.Considering the similarities between Rolling on the Floor Laughing and Face With Tears of Joy it's possible that some people may perceive them as variations of each other/having the same meaning.

And i am guilty of confusing them myself, which further strengthens this argument,

 

2.Often is not always - "Often conveys hysterical laughter more intense than Face With Tears of Joy."

 

As long as there is doubt, there is the benefit of doubt.

[ToboRobot]

7 hours ago, Roswell said:

It would probably serve you better in your future debates to actually read the (laughably suspect) citation you're hinging your argument on:

 

 

You know what it's used for, you're just being contrarian to be contrarian.

 

If you want more "sources", they're freely available on the first page of Google. Though, they probably won't support your mental gymnastics:

 

https://www.dictionary.com/e/emoji/face-with-tears-of-joy-emoji/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_with_Tears_of_Joy_emoji

 

The image you attached states, "Widely used to show something that is funny or pleasing."

Go look up what pleasing means.

[Roswell]

34 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

The image you attached states, "Widely used to show something that is funny or pleasing."

Go look up what pleasing means.

Not my image, it’s your own dumb link you posted as proof. But… it literally says it’s a “face shedding tears from laughing so much”.

Your argument is so flimsy that your smoking gun citation from “emojipedia” contradicts your own argument.

 

You’re wrong, move on. Everyone, including you, knows that people use that emoji to imply laughter.

7 hours ago, Vishera said:

As long as there is doubt, there is the benefit of doubt.

If that makes you feel better about being proven wrong on the internet, have at it.

[ToboRobot]

25 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Not my image, it’s your own dumb link you posted as proof. But… it literally says it’s a “face shedding tears from laughing so much”.

 

 

 

It also literally says, "Widely used to show something that is funny or pleasing."

So words having meaning, but they can have multiple meanings.  

You are focused on a single meaning to the exclusion of other meanings.

 

 

[Roswell]

3 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

It also literally says, "Widely used to show something that is funny or pleasing."

So words having meaning, but they can have multiple meanings.  

You are focused on a single meaning to the exclusion of other meanings.

 

 

Yes, because we all know people cry from laughter when they're just "pleased". 

 

Please, tell me more!

[ToboRobot]

1 minute ago, Roswell said:

Yes, because we all know people cry from laughter when they're just "pleased". 

 

Please, tell me more!

You act like humans are robots with a single programmed way of expressing emotions.  My experience around the world with real people is that they exist on a spectrum.

You act like everyone must act in one correct way, and all other ways are wrong.  I disagree.  You are showing intolerance to those who you feel are not tolerant enough for your personal tastes, and I also disagree with that way of life.  

This conversation is no longer productive, have a great day.

[Roswell]

3 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

You act like humans are robots with a single programmed way of expressing emotions.  My experience around the world with real people is that they exist on a spectrum.

You act like everyone must act in one correct way, and all other ways are wrong.  I disagree.  You are showing intolerance to those who you feel are not tolerant enough for your personal tastes, and I also disagree with that way of life.  

This conversation is no longer productive, have a great day.

I just realized (stupid me for not double checking) you've been arguing in bad faith this entire time.

 

The video in OP has a "rolling on the floor laughing" emoji in it, not the one you keep quoting. Here's your precious "emojipedia" entry on the one ACTUALLY USED in the video: https://emojipedia.org/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing/

 

Look at OP yourself. If they're using that one, and we follow your ridiculous logic, then there IS ZERO QUESTION WHAT HE COULD HAVE IMPLIED.

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Roswell said:

I just realized (stupid me for not double checking) you've been arguing in bad faith this entire time.

 

The video in OP has a "rolling on the floor laughing" emoji in it, not the one you keep quoting. Here's your precious "emojipedia" entry on the one ACTUALLY USED in the video: https://emojipedia.org/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing/

 

Look at OP yourself. If they're using that one, and we follow your ridiculous logic, then there IS ZERO QUESTION WHAT HE COULD HAVE IMPLIED.

I have to say, I always check emojipedia every time I use an emoji so i know the definition of using things like :dog-1: or :pepeKermit: or :rolling on floor: or :skree:
 

[Middcore]

I think he should have put more thought into how this could be perceived, but I think you (OP) have chosen to interpret it in the worst possible light. 

[Roswell]

13 minutes ago, Middcore said:

I think he should have put more thought into how this could be perceived, but I think you (OP) have chosen to interpret it in the worst possible light. 

How else do you interpret someone filming deaf people and slapping the rofl emoji on it?

[ToboRobot]

1 hour ago, Roswell said:

How else do you interpret someone filming deaf people and slapping the rofl emoji on it?

Sorry, was it the rofl or laughing emoji?  If we are going to put so much focus on a silly emoji, we must be accurate in the description and definition of the offending emoji.

Alternative interpretations have been mentioned and sources for alternative definitions have been provided in this thread for anyone with an open mind to understand.

[Roswell]

18 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Sorry, was it the rofl or laughing emoji?  If we are going to put so much focus on a silly emoji, we must be accurate in the description and definition of the offending emoji.

Alternative interpretations have been mentioned and sources for alternative definitions have been provided in this thread for anyone with an open mind to understand.

Not interested in arguing logical fallacies with you. You were making a ridiculous argument based on an emoji that wasn’t even in the video.

 

You were either intentionally arguing in bad faith or genuinely made a mistake. Either way, it’s now clear that you were wrong and your argument was irrelevant.

 

Just move on.

[ToboRobot]

13 minutes ago, Roswell said:

 

 

You were either intentionally arguing in bad faith or genuinely made a mistake. 

 

Just move on.

I think you are projecting.

I will!

[starsmine]

22 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Not interested in arguing logical fallacies with you. You were making a ridiculous argument based on an emoji that wasn’t even in the video.

 

You were either intentionally arguing in bad faith or genuinely made a mistake. Either way, it’s now clear that you were wrong and your argument was irrelevant.

 

Just move on.

no roswell, the only one arguing in bad faith is you.

we all recognize it could have been a malicious emoji. However we all also recognize emojis don't, and never have, had strict meanings; and without additional context, attributing malic on what can be an honest mistake, that simply could be solved by having it be a teachable moment is a bit much when there are many other possible reasons they put it there. Escalating the rhetoric doesn't help, as in this situation doing so will only build animosity.  

Emojis are a vibe, not a definition. You can use them to keep the tone light, keep it fun, keep it non personal. Communication will always have a disconnect between intention and perception. Which again, to forcibly attribute malice when those are possible intentions, does not respect the possibility of that disconnect.

It is correct to say, "hey it could be read as malicious, probably not wise to do that. People may misinterpret this"
It is not correct to say, "hey this is malicious, and you are wrong"

[LinusTech]

My mom uses ellipses all the time. 

 

To me they are ominous. To her they appear to serve the same purpose as "um" or "like". She just liberally sprinkles them on top of what she's typing. 

 

To imagine that everyone interprets a word or emoji the exact same way - even if it WAS the only definition - is simply not realistic.