4
Thursday, May 12, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
LARA MOEHLMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
JEREMY KAPLAN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BRADLEY WHIPPLE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
Don’t waste your vote
Bring back the written word
A
little while back, I was
texting a friend from home.
We were catching up and
I told her that
my grandfather
had just passed
away, so I’d gone
to Florida for the
funeral. Almost
immediately, she texted me back a
red heart emoji. When I saw it, I was
touched. But at the same time, I was a
little taken aback, maybe even a little
frustrated that she hadn’t written
something like “I’m so sorry for your
loss” or “Let me know if you want to
talk.”
Nonetheless, there could have
been a variety of reasons why she
didn’t say any of these things. As
students, we are incredibly busy, so
we may not have time to respond
to every e-mail or every text with
incredible detail. In fact, we shouldn’t
expect these types of responses all
the time, and I do not fault her for not
responding with more than an emoji.
They are, after all, there for us to use.
So why wouldn’t we? But this moment
got me thinking. As technology use
is rapidly increasing and expanding,
Facebook stickers, emoticons, emojis
and GIFs have changed the way we
communicate, but not necessarily for
the better.
Ever since the advent of Facebook,
its users have been clamoring for
a “dislike” button to pair with the
“like” button. And though there is no
indication that feature will be an option
any time soon, at the end of February
2016 Facebook gave its users the ability
to respond to a post on their newsfeed
by clicking on one of five emoticons.
The choices? “Love,” “haha,” “sad,”
“angry” and “wow.” Now, people aren’t
forced to default to “liking” a post.
According to Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg, Facebook added the
emoticons because they want users to
be able to “express empathy and make
it comfortable to share a wider range of
emotions.” Facebook Product Manager
Sammi Krug said this gives users
the ability to “authentically react” to
Facebook posts, adding that this new
feature is an “easy” thing to do that
“opens a lot of doors.”
Zuckerberg and Krugs’ statements
indicate that they see the solution to
a lack of emotion over Facebook to be
animated happy and sad faces. Now,
not only can you “like” something, but
you can also “love” something. But to
me, these statements are problematic.
Don’t get me wrong. I think emoticons
and emojis have a place in our
communication. In fact, it would be
cool if someone were to “love” a picture
and comment.
I believe an emoticon could be a
nice supplement to a comment, but it
shouldn’t replace one — especially if
the subject is very important or serious.
We need to think more about how we
use these emoticons and emojis, as we
often, too willingly, replace a written
sentiment with a little animated face
or GIF.
By adding these emoticons, some
can express anger about a New York
Times article regarding the shootings
in Brussels, for example, by simply
clicking on the “angry” face emoticon.
And by making “reacting” this easy,
I believe we lose truly authentic and
thought-out written comments.
In this way, we are essentially
telling people that clicking the “love”
emoticon is the same thing as typing
out “I love you” or “This is a great
article.” Similarly, these emoticons
also emphasize a one — size — fits —
all mentality. Take, for example, the
“wow” emoticon. By clicking that, you
could be saying, “Wow, that is really
terrible” or “Wow, this is amazing,”
which can be problematic given that
an emoticon can’t easily distinguish
between the two, unless someone takes
the time to clarify what it means.
Words allow us to convey different
levels of emotion that an emoticon
cannot. If a post pops up on your
newsfeed about the passing of one of
your friends’ loved-ones, I am sure it
could make you sad and you may feel
inclined to click the “sad” emoticon.
But then, right after, if a news story
about the closing of your favorite store
pops up, that may also make you feel
sad, but it’s likely a different level of
sad. What are you going to do then?
Click the “sad” emoticon?
To me, these events are different
and elicit two different levels of
sadness. I would feel odd using the
“sad” emoticon for both and just
leaving it at that. It is my belief that
these emoticons don’t encompass
all emotions, nor do they always do
a good job of conveying what we
actually mean to say without some
explanation. That is where words
can and must come in.
Although many see Facebook’s
newest feature as a blessing, finally a
way to more accurately express how
you feel about something, I am wary
to accept it without reservation. I
would like to see the written word
make a comeback. And the best
way to do that is to give us fewer
ways to hide behind GIFs, emojis
and emoticons. Or if you are going
use emoticon, maybe write a little
something to go along with it.
—Anna Polumbo-Levy can be
reached at annapl@umich.edu.
ANNA
POLUMBO-
LEVY
FROM THE DAILY
Roland Davidson, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan,
Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy,
Kevin Sweitzer, Brooke White.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Many voters who have rallied
behind these two hashtags feel as
though the candidate affiliated with
their identified majority party is
totally unsuitable to be president.
To this end, these citizens have
proposed either voting for a third-
party candidate as a protest vote,
writing in the name of a candidate
they would have rather endorsed
or simply staying home on Election
Day. This impulse is understandable
given
how
unpalatable
the
presumptive nominees are to some
voters. All of these decisions, made in
protest, if done without considering
the consequences, all accomplish
the same thing for our American
political system: nothing.
A protest vote can serve an
important
function
in
many
democracies throughout the world.
In
multi-party
parliamentary
systems, a protest vote can help close
the gap between parties and prevent
a single one from establishing a
ruling majority. However, because
the U.S. presidential election only
has two major primary candidates,
a protest vote cannot institutionally
accomplish this goal.
People
who
band
together
around
#BernieorBust
are
by
definition averse to compromise.
This purity can be commendable,
but compromise is essential to our
political system. Many people accept
the importance of bargaining in the
abstract, but when it comes time
to actually do so, they fall short. By
adhering to an unyielding ideaolgy,
voters spoil elections for themselves.
One only has to look back to 2000
to see how a mere 2.7 percent of the
vote going to Ralph Nader swung the
results to Bush, who very few Nader
supporters considered a second
choice. Thus, it’s important for
people who have so much trepidation
about a Clinton or Trump presidency
to seriously consider what they want
the country to look like in four years.
There are, however, valid reasons
to vote for a third party. When a
third party reaches five percent of
the popular vote, it receives federal
funding for the next election cycle.
Therefore, if you believe that our
nation can break out of a two — party
system (despite the sizable obstacle
presented by our single-member,
plurality-rule
election
system),
then voting for a third party is a
worthwhile decision.
Regardless of the way in which
one ultimately votes, it is important
to do so while giving serious thought
to the issues our nation faces. Simply
writing in a bygone candidate’s name
is just as bad as sitting home and not
voting. As you start to consider the
candidates as the choices become
clear, consider what your individual
vote will do. Even when there may
not seem to be a clear-cut candidate
for a given party to support, every
vote counts. Make sure to use yours
wisely.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the highest unfavorability ratings of
any Democrat or Republican nominee ever running for the presidency. This
phenomenon has a plethora of implications for our democracy, but one of the
most problematic is the creation of the #NeverTrump campaign and its cousin
#BernieorBust. #NeverTrump is a rallying call from Republicans, such as Paul
Ryan, who categorically refuse to support their party’s presumptive nominee
for any number of reasons: questionable behavior on the campaign trail, general
bigotry, total lack of a coherent policy platform and serial lying. On the other side,
there are lingering questions regarding Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server,
passage of the 1994 crime bill, receiving six-digit payments for speeches before
Goldman Sachs executives and perceived lack of authenticity. All of this stands in
stark contrast to the ideological purity of her competitor, Bernie Sanders.