Arguing without questioning each other: The emoji that’s still missing

I wanted to contradict directly. Neo finally had the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. But I didn’t want to offend my friend, because I otherwise really liked his praise, I also like the film and thought it was nice that my friend shared his rediscovery and enthusiasm with us.

How could I disagree with him on this one detail without having to go through the hassle of saying that I appreciated the rest of his post?

Some time ago I started to look more closely at misunderstandings: how they arise and what harm they can do without us even noticing. They arise particularly easily in written language, especially in short messages. While in conversations there are voices, faces, smiles and hand movements, in the message there is only naked contradiction.

Luckily there are emojis. Four out of five Germans now use them. But of all things, a sign that says “I like you and everything you write here, I only disagree with you in this one detail” is missing. Of all the smileys, hearts and kisses, I can’t find any that would fit even halfway. In this specific case, they appear mocking, passive-aggressive or silly. It lacks the equivalent of a facial expression or tone of voice that signals in conversation: “Don’t take the following as an attack.”

So you could spell it out in a complicated way or – and I often find myself doing this – if in doubt, simply not contradict it at all in order to avoid the other person getting it the wrong way.

I wish I didn’t have to worry about that. An emoji for benevolent disagreement would simplify things.

It would be a shame if the solution were to leave what is obviously untrue out of fear of the social costs of correcting it. And of course this also applies to something much more relevant than the question of whether the pill in a classic film was green or blue. Actually, the opposite should be possible: people who like or respect each other should be able to argue fairly decisively about an issue without fundamentally questioning each other. I want to be able to object without taking the risk that my counterpart will feel personally rejected.

I looked into who actually decides which emojis end up on our smartphones. Behind this is the Unicode Consortium, an international organization that maintains the global standard for characters. Private individuals can also submit suggestions for new emojis there. A working group called the “Emoji Standard & Research Working Group” then reviews the suggestions and can recommend them for inclusion in the standard. If successful, she will receive a code that is valid worldwide. U+1F609 is the wink smiley, U+1F3E7 stands for ATM.

If you want a new emoji, you not only have to send in a specific graphic, but you also have to explain why the character would likely be used frequently. Proposals submitted that were rejected last year include 3D printer, flying taxi, armadillo and cannabis flower emojis. The latter has already been submitted six times in vain.

I rate the urgency of my idea significantly higher than the need for an armadillo emoji.

The symbol that is missing should express, on the one hand, “I like you – but I disagree with you on this” and, on the other hand, “Good observation, but you are wrong about this one detail”.

I asked the AI ​​to create a design for me. She presented me with two hands forming a heart with an extended index finger in the middle. Unfortunately, the people to whom I showed the emoji as a test were strongly reminded of genitals.

The second draft was harmless, but also not self-explanatory. The additional index finger was now docked to the right of the heart-shaped hand gesture.