“LOL” is essentially different from “:)”

What do people mean when they use ‘LOL’ in their dialogue? Do they mean what it means, like when they use ‘:)’ in their dialogue on a chat? Or do they mean something completely different? I have been bothered by the excessive use of ‘LOL’ in the dialogues I have personally exchanged with people, not because it offends me in any significant ways, but precisely because it doesn’t even just do that – because it has no clear meaning to it or any significance attached to it. ‘LOL’ is essentially a self-negating expression that has no self-referential content in it. It bothers me not because it has an offensive aspect to it, but because it has no aspect at all. It should not be employed to replace an actual word or a universal language, i.e. pictograph, etc…

Let me ask first this question to those of who you constantly invoke ‘LOL’ in their everyday dialogue: what are you trying to express, exactly?

They say something is essentially different from something else in one of the following senses: 1) A is essentially different from B when A is categorically different from B, i.e., when A belongs to a different genus from what B belongs to, as in an animal and a concept – the former is an animate object whereas the latter is a product of mind. Thus, a camel is essentially different from the concept of Justice or of Gravity or of Free Market, as the former belongs to a corporeal being while the latter doesn’t. Hence they are incompatible with each other – you cannot say a camel is better than Freedom or a camel is superior to Free Market, etc… 2) A is essentially different from B when A’s reason for existing is different from (or opposed to) those of B’s, i.e., a pair of scissors is essentially different (ontologically, you might perhaps say) from a tape. The former’s end is to cut, while the latter’s is to bring two pieces together. 3) A is essentially different from B when A and B are incompatible, i.e., a colour and a loaf of bread cannot be compared in any intelligible way, for it would be absurd to say one likes yellow better than a baguette , or that the one is more righteous than the other, and so on. 4) A is essentially different from B when either one of them is a sufficient condition for the other or a necessary condition for the other, as in having intelligence does not guarantee having understanding or wisdom, the former has to do with calculations and mapping out of the particular concepts to work out in the mind in particular situations, while understanding and wisdom have to do with comprehending the universal and applying it to the particulars.

Clearly, those 4 points raised above interrelate one another in reality, making sometimes not possible to say one of them is necessarily the reason and not the other for declaring something is essentially different. E.g., that a language is essentially different from expression/emotion may be for three reasons: 1) and 3)  and 4) but not necessarily for 2). This is because both a language and an expression/emotion can be said to have the same, or similar, end to communicate or deliberate one’s meanings to the others, hence a language and an expression/emotion are not essentially different from each other on the ground of 2). However, they are essentially different from each other on both grounds of 1) and 3) and 4). A language is essentially different from an expression/emotion in that a language is intelligible and appeals to an audio apprehension ability, whereas to understand an expression/emotion does not require, or solely rely on, the auditory recognition. Another way to put it is that they are usually mutually exclusive – knowing a language does not help understand someone’s emotion or expression, and vice versa. This contrast may be most apparent among the interaction between animals (including us who speak different languages but understand others’ sentiment or needs). A language is also essentially different on the ground of 3), for they are incompatible, really. One cannot say knowing a language is better than understanding emotion/expression without qualification (i.e., one might say that the one is better than the other with qualification, as in ‘the former is better than the latter when having a discussion’ or ‘the latter is better than the former when making others feel respected or loved.’…). And finally, a language is essentially different from emotion/expression on the ground of 4), for having one of them does not mean one must necessarily or have the other. I.e., being able to speak a language does not guarantee being able to understand others’ feelings.

It may be objected that they both belong to the faculty of understanding – but still, weighing other aspects for something to be different into consideration, even though they may both belong to the faculty of understanding or as such, their differences more vast that it may still be said that they are essentially different from one another. E.g., both a language and an expression/emotion may require understanding of something, but possessing one of these does not usually mean possessing of the two. This shows that while it may be plausible to say that they are somehow linked in the faculty of understanding, neither is sufficient nor necessary for the development of the other, 4).

Now then, what do I mean when I say ‘LOL’ and ‘:)’ are essentially different from each other? Precisely like a language and an expression of emotion as discussed above. While there may be said to be interrelating aspect seen in both, such as the end of its employment, i.e., to make others understood, ‘LOL’ is still essentially different from ‘:)’ in the way that 1) they are categorically different from one another, one is intelligible in so far as it is a language while the other is not, that 3) they are incompatible since one tries to explain while the other tries to express. To explain one needs articulation while to express one only needs emotive signs. The former requiring intelligence, while the latter does not. Consequently, they are essentially different from one another on the ground of 4) that being able to use ‘LOL’ in the conversation does not guarantee being able to understand or fully express the emotion of the feeling subject.

What amounts to is this: ‘LOL’ is a language, while ‘:)’ is a pictograph.

Now, that is the underlining claim in people’s interchangeable employment of these ‘terms’. Fair enough. I should not complain if that really is the case, i.e., if the problem I am having has to do with one of them being a language and the other being a pictograph. After all, why should I complain when I see a pictograph for a toilet at an airport just because it does not say in a language ‘toilet’? ‘LOL’ is after all a language, shortened for ‘Laughing-out-Loud’. It seems reasonable enough to employ them interchangeably, just as the air port should be able to use a pictograph for toilet and a language for it interchangeably.

My problem is, however, precisely on the credibility of the claim that ‘LOL’ is just a language-counterpart of ‘:)’. That it in fact is not so is evident from the fact that no one who has used ‘LOL’ felt such redibility (from Latin ridere, to laugh) for whatever topic it is that the person is finding it ‘LOL’. In fact, what people are finding it ‘LOL’ most likely does not translate as ‘:)’ even. Consider the following exchange of dialogues such as this:

A: I got my computer stolen today

B: How?

A: I was sleeping when it happened.

B: LOL.

Now, everyone sees that this is not a laughable moment. In fact had ‘:)’ been used instead of ‘LOL’, you will immediately see the incompatibility between the two.

A: I got my computer stolen today.

B: How?

A: I was sleeping when it happened.

B: 🙂

What bothers me then is the fact that people are not using ‘LOL’ when they find something truly funny, but using it at random as if the users themselves have no idea what he or she is responding to and how they are responding to the situation. ‘LOL’ has literally become the ultimate ‘X’ that replaces anything and everything without actually replacing it. It is a universal cover-up for not letting others know that you really are not interested in the topic that is being brought up, but feel obliged to engage in the conversation. It is like a fictitious smile that one gives when one does not know how to respond, or like saying ‘I do not know what to say,’ when receiving a gift from someone. It tries to say everything the other needs to hear without actually spelling it out – in fact, without actually knowing what the speaker wants to say about a particular situation. It is the indifference that the ‘LOL’ denotes that I am bothered by. It is the pretence that it signifies that troubles me, and it is that often people using ‘LOL’ even do not see the pretence in using ‘LOL’ that makes me want to ask them directly, ‘Are you?’

Moreover, it now then seems to fail to satisfy even the only plausible criteria for ‘LOL”s being ‘essentially not different’ from the emoticon ‘:)’ – or rather, it meets 2). That is, A is essentially different from B when A’s purpose is different from that of B’s. In other words, A and B must have the same end in order for both of them to be interchangeably used, otherwise they are essentially different and hence they cannot be used interchangeably. For ‘LOL’ does not properly communicate what the speaker wants to deliberate – the speaker in fact does not even know what is being deliberated, if any is being deliberated. Therefore, the end/purpose of ‘LOL’ cannot be to properly communicate with the others of what the speaker is saying.

‘LOL’ then is essentially different from ‘:)’ according to all four respects of the criteria for an essential difference of a thing, and hence should not be used in dialogues if one were to avoid willful promotion of ignorance.