You didn't read. I said that you can convey any of these equally well in ascii. Yes, it's handy to be able to plug an :) at the end of a sentence which may otherwise sound rude/overly direct. That doesn't mean I need 1000 icons, and _that's what we're talking about_.

I read the whole thing.

The emojis serve a purpose. Text doesn't serve that purpose. I don't know how to describe the niche they fill with text. They're not a stand-in for emoticons.

You don't get it. It's okay. Not everything is for you.

>I don't know how to describe the niche they fill with text. They're not a stand-in for emoticons.

So you can't explain it, but it's I who "doesn't get it". Ok then. I'll excuse you for a bit as it's going to take some time to untwist your brain from that logical contortion.

> I don't know how to describe the niche they fill with text.

Consider the possibility that this is because there isn't one.

HN doesn't support emoji, so here's an example: https://cybre.space/@Riley/100149464360818801

The meaning is immediately clear to anyone familiar with the reference. It's basically a pictographic language that leans heavily on a shared culture that's largely internet-based.

Ah, I get it, it's value is making the people use it feel special because only "the right kind of people" will get their jokes. Just a new generation of children using slang. Why was that so difficult to use words to describe?

>> "Ah, I get it, it's value is making the people use it feel special because only "the right kind of people" will get their jokes. Just a new generation of children using slang."

You sure do have some text there.

>> "Why was that so difficult to use words to describe?"

The medium is the message.

Oh, so inside jokes. Yeah that's totally new and groundbreaking.

Do you similarly disdain things like Cockney Rhyming Slang and Polari because they're effectively "inside jokes" that express things you could equally well express with "plain words"?