spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

OPINIONMediaDecember 15, 2021

No laughing matter: Why it’s time to cancel Facebook’s haha reaction

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Facebook’s haha reaction was developed to enable users to express laughter, but it has turned into the emoji of ridicule and scorn.

The haha emoji is poisoning Facebook. Created 11 years ago to express laughter, the emoji – officially dubbed Grinning Squinting Face – has become the emoji of ridicule. Every time I see that little yellow ball of derision sitting at the bottom of news stories and posts, cackling at the pandemic, climate change, inequality – actually anything where someone is trying to make the world a better place – my faith in humanity slips a little further.

While I’m training myself not to click on Facebook’s comments section – and that addictive rush of outrage of reading the horrendous views of strangers – the haha emoji is unavoidable. It takes just one person to click that avatar of vitriol and the post and my newsfeed is tainted forever. Even on stories where the comments are turned off, you’ll still find that little androgynous face of scorn.

My experience of social media is now like being followed everywhere by Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons – like every earnest view I hold is a source of belittlement for the world.

In a way it has become the emoji of the moment. The emoji of Brexit, Donald Trump and the anti-vaxxers. A weapon of the trolls in the time of the culture wars.

So how did the emoji of joy become the emoji of hate?

One columnist called the Tears of Joy emoji a “sobbing cretin popular with right-wing bullies and those with no imagination”.

The haha emoji started its life as the innocuous emoticon, XD, during a simpler time where lol, :) and MSN messenger were at the forefront of online communication. The emoji itself was developed in Japan and in 2010 was part of the first great global emoji cache known as Unicode 6.0 – a worldwide emoji standard, sometimes called the UN for emojis.

But Grinning Squinting Face soon fell into the shadow of its cousin, Tears of Joy emoji, another Unicode 6.0 alumnus, and part of the first batch of emojis available on iPhone. By 2015, Tears of Joy had changed the world’s communication and was named Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year, the first time an emoji has taken the title. Interestingly, “post-truth” won the following year.

But not everyone was besotted with Tears of Joy. In 2016, Guardian columnist Abi Wilkinson called it an “obnoxious, chortling little yellow dickhead”.

“There’s something about this particular character – with its broad, cackling grin and the performatively prominent tears of mirth – that just feels inherently mocking and cruel,” Wilkinson said.

It wasn’t just the design that produced such a visceral reaction in Wilkinson, but how it was used – it could be found in comments on stories about refugees who drowned at sea and articles on the rise of hate crime in post-Brexit Britain. The emoji wasn’t being used to express joy, but hate. As she saw it, Tears of Joy had become a weapon of the right in the culture wars.

“When I look at its yellow face, I see the detestable, carefree smirks of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson as they merrily dance through the current chaos – hop, skip and jumping over the cracks in society they’ve helped drive deeper and wider, safe in the knowledge they’ll personally be just fine no matter what.”

An Irish Times columnist called Tears of Joy “more beastly than any other [emoji]” and a “sobbing cretin popular with right-wing bullies and those with no imagination”.

But Tears of Joy soon took a backseat – 2016 was the year of the arguably more divisive Grinning Squinting Face. That year, Facebook made a momentous decision. The “like” –  the big blue thumbs up that had become a symbol of the social media platform – would be expanded to include a suite of emojis: love, wow, sad, angry… and “haha”. Those bullies were gifted a new and more powerful tool.

After almost 100 Facebook users reacted to this tragedy with a laughing emoji, a Kent Online journalist contacted some of them to ask them what they were thinking (Screenshot)

As people were given more ways to express their views on Facebook, it soon became clear that, as journalist Daniel Walters wrote, the haha emoji is “an A-hole”. Walters said, rather than laughter, the emoji had been “pressed into service for a more sinister purpose: Derisive mockery of sincere statements”.

“Make no mistake, Facebook’s laughing face emoji is laughing at you, and it’s doing so in a way far more infuriating than simply a written-out ‘ha ha’ or ‘lol’.”

The sneering contempt of Grinning Squinty was used to belittle millions around the world. A journalist writing on Medium said the emoji had even been used to discredit victims of sexual abuse in India and the #MeToo movement.

“How do you expect women to come forward and report such crimes? It is one thing to not believe them. But it is worse when you laugh at them, mock them and reduce their self-worth to nothingness.”

This year, a Bangladeshi cleric actually issued a fatwa on the haha emoji, telling his 3 million followers that “if your reaction was intended to mock or ridicule people who posted or made comments on social media, it’s totally forbidden in Islam”.

There is also something about Grinning Squinting Face that seems objectively worse than Tears of Joy – the aggressive eyebrows angling forward and the slightly tilted back head, looking down on you. While most descriptions of the emoji say it is used to convey laughter, one definition gets closer to its true meaning: “Verb: Treat with ridicule or scorn; deride, mock, laugh, sneer”.

Elevating Grinning Squinty to the status of Facebook reaction has also given the “A-hole” emoji outsized power. The reactions at the bottom of the post are not weighted to represent the number of people who click on a certain reaction. A single click on Grinning Squinty and it’s anchored to a post and an ocean of hearts and likes can’t wash it away. In a global pandemic, when social media feels more toxic and divisive than ever, this has made Facebook feel even more like the home of sneering bullies.

But do we want social media to be forever polluted with this sneering face of contempt and division? After five years, there seems to be only one solution. Just like Lonely lingerie, Charlie Chaplin and all musicals, it’s time to cancel the haha emoji. Bring back the like and the lol if we must, but Grinning Squinting Face must be excommunicated from Facebook and purged from our newsfeeds forever.

Although I know which emoji I’ll see when this story pops up on Facebook.

Keep going!
Melissa Derby and Stephen Rainbow
Melissa Derby and Stephen Rainbow

OPINIONMediaAugust 17, 2024

Can you be a human rights commissioner and transphobic at the same time?

Melissa Derby and Stephen Rainbow
Melissa Derby and Stephen Rainbow

What are the odds of two new human rights commissioners holding anti-trans views? Madeleine Chapman ponders the latest appointments.

In a classic comms move, justice minister Paul Goldsmith announced the appointment of three new commissioners to the human rights commission on a Friday afternoon. The roles (chief human rights commissioner, race relations commissioner and equal employment opportunities commissioner) are not minor jobs in this country. Typically, commissioner roles are held by people who have extensive experience in community work and advocacy. They may have particular areas of interest but overall have a strong sense of equity and inclusion in the work they do. They also would all be expected to believe in protecting the human rights of New Zealanders.

Which makes it particularly baffling that two of the three commissioners appointed on Friday have a history of the complete opposite.

Let’s start with our new chief human rights commissioner Stephen Rainbow. Despite his last name and the fact that the press release touted his work of “promoting LBGT rights”, Rainbow has publicly expressed anti-trans views. In 2021, while working at Auckland Transport, Rainbow commented under a post in the Rainbow Auckland Networking Group on Facebook. The post was urging members to sign a petition calling for a ban on conversion therapy. Rainbow commented: “be careful…there’s some elements of the trans agenda being sneakily promoted through this campaign.”

Complaints were made, including from within AT, and an investigation launched. And if you flinched at the word “transphobic” in the headline… believing that there is a scary “trans agenda” behind the criticism of conversion therapy is a literal representation of trans-phobia.

Rainbow is a gay man, and been a vocal advocate for gay marriage as well as a former board member of New Zealand AIDS Foundation (now called the Burnett Foundation). On first glance, Rainbow’s history suggests at the very least a support of the full rainbow community but his comments from not long ago would suggest otherwise.

On a different human rights note, Rainbow has consistently expressed support for Israel while the country decimates Palestine. In January of this year, Rainbow authored an article for the Israel Institute questioning “the left’s” sympathy for Palestinians despite Israel being “one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world”. Such arguments defending Israel’s attacks have been roundly critiqued for being, shall we say, really fucking stupid.

Then there’s Melissa Derby (Ngāti Ranginui), our new race relations commissioner. Derby is a founding member of the Free Speech Union and has also raised eyebrows by sharing posts that were decidedly anti-trans. In 2023, after the trans rights protest in Albert Park, Derby shared a tweet saying the “trans movement” cannot be tolerated in civil society.

Just to be clear, the “trans movement” and “trans agenda” mentioned by our new commissioners is simply trans people existing and living their lives.

In 2020, Derby spoke at an event hosted by anti-trans group Speak Up For Women, the same event cancelled by Massey University amid safety concerns. She opened with a mihi then confusingly followed it with a joke about how apparently “you’re not allowed to criticise anything Māori”. Derby then wasted no time in making her general views known: “As far as points in the oppression Olympics are concerned, I’m always off to a pretty good start, being female with Māori heritage. Although now that people who are biologically men want to compete in our sports teams, my winning streak may be coming to an end.”

In an information booklet published by the Human Rights Commission in June, it is explicitly stated that “trans rights are human rights” before going on the explain that “Under international human rights standards, everyone has the right to be recognised, respected, and participate in public life. You have the right to define your own gender and be free from harm based on your gender.” The booklet suggests contacting the Human Rights Commission with any concerns regarding gender discrimination and the Human Rights Review Tribunal will soon hear its first case of gender discrimination on the basis of being trans.

In June 2023, a global Ipsos survey showed that New Zealanders had the highest level of agreement that transgender people should be protected from discrimination (84%). Which means the vast majority of New Zealanders are at the very least of the view that trans people should be left alone. Of the 16% who disagree, fewer would make it a public stance and even fewer would risk employment to voice such a harmful minority view.

So it’s mighty interesting that two of the highest positions regarding human rights in New Zealand are now held by people who have publicly voiced anti-trans views (among other questionable views). Wow, what are the odds?

This week’s episode of Behind the Story

Anna Rawhiti-Connell knows more about the internet and how it functions than probably any other journalist in New Zealand. And this week she had the perfect subject: Raygun, the Olympic breakdancing competitor from Australia.

Raygun has been many different things since she first revealed herself in the final weekend of the Paris Games. She’s been an icon, an embarrassment, a hero, and now apparently the subject of an investigation. Anna tracked her rise and fall and rise and fall in a deep dive for The Spinoff. We talked about the latest developments and shared some lukewarm takes about New Zealand’s success in Olympic sports.

So what have readers spent the most time reading this week?

Comments of the week

“I was on a local board in the first years of the new city. At that time, along with the enormous effort from staff to maintain professionalism with very limited infrastructure (like phones, desks, computers!), there was a lot of excitement about the new city. Speakers told us that the world was watching the Auckland experiment. Throughout the process of the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan, people came to meetings expecting something new and responsive.

Sadly, I think the old, clumsy, heavy-handed Council response simply reappeared. Agile, innovative? Digital town hall? Nope. And following the people’s Unitary Plan, along came the Government’s own version that simply trumped what Aucklanders had worked so hard to achieve consensus on.”

— HelgaA

“I was on a benefit during the last National government and it was a hard life.
I had no car, only a single pram to get my two little kids around. Every time I tried to do something to improve my situation I would get told off by WINZ or end up in a worse situation.

What got me off the benefit wasn’t sanctions, tellings off from WINZ case managers, or “ready to work” seminars. What got me off the benefit was living somewhere rent was 1/4 of my benefit, where I didn’t have to worry about buying food and could afford heating. When I could finally take a break from the crushing poverty, I spent my money on self-improvement, networking, and courses that put me in circles with people who weren’t poor which got me a job offer that was my start. You can’t get out of poverty when you’re crushed.”

— Kirsty

Pick up where this leaves off

Sign up for my weekly Saturday newsletterwhich includes more handpicked recommended reading,  bundled up to arrive in your inbox at 9 a.m.

But wait there's more!
I was destined to love Tom Cruise, that brilliant freak, all my life. (Image: The Spinoff)
I was destined to love Tom Cruise, that brilliant freak, all my life. (Image: The Spinoff)

Pop CultureAugust 17, 2024

‘The mission is clearly possible’: On watching every single Tom Cruise movie ever made

I was destined to love Tom Cruise, that brilliant freak, all my life. (Image: The Spinoff)
I was destined to love Tom Cruise, that brilliant freak, all my life. (Image: The Spinoff)

I watched all 46 of Tom Cruise’s films over the past 12 months. The question on everyone’s lips: why?

The Spinoff Essay showcases the best essayists in Aotearoa, on topics big and small. Made possible by the generous support of our members.

Over the last year, I’ve watched every single Tom Cruise movie ever made. In my head – and aloud while drinking wine – I called it the Thomas Cruise Completionist Project. Everyone else just called it stupid. 

Like any self-respecting dumb project one inflicts upon themselves and is held to by absolutely no one, there were rules. The 46 movies had to be watched in chronological order. I had to watch at least one every two weeks, but preferably every week, and I had to take notes: where I was, who I was with, what I thought. No skips, even if I’d seen it before or was absolutely dreading it, because who would want to watch a movie called The Last Samurai starring a white guy (Cruise, naturally) that came out in 2005?

Universally upon finding out about this project, everyone asked why. Tom Cruise is weird! True. He is short! I do not discriminate against the short, but true. He is in a cult! Damningly true. He is a thrice-married adrenaline junkie whose cousin is randomly in Lost! All true. Why do this at all? 

Well, for the bit, obviously. Does no one do things for the bit anymore? What is the cornerstone of our national psyche if not being sincerely dedicated to pissing about? If I am not committed to the bit I am committed to nothing. Also, I finished my Master’s degree and needed a project to stay sane while job hunting. 

Tom Cruise has been a movie star for what feels like all time, but actually since about 1983. His whole career is sort of unbelievable, but when you experience it week by week it feels destined, even sublime. His film debut is the near unwatchable Endless Love (1981), which my flatmate Soph and I watched while she ate an unbearably salty pasta and Tom ran around in denim booty shorts and indirectly inspired arson. 

From there he’s on the periphery of a few films: some good (Taps, The Outsiders) and some completely horrendous (if a worse movie was made in 1983 than Losin’ It, my best mate Siân and I owe everyone worldwide $5).

But it was film five that made him; jetted him up and apart. Risky Business (1983) – watched alone, job hunting with a freshly shattered laptop, wretchedly miserable – is a movie star’s movie. Slick and exciting, you can see exactly why it blew the doors off the place in the 80s. He slides into his living room, white shirt, long socks, singing into that candlestick, and even though it’s Tom Cruise and he’s as familiar and canonised as the Coke logo, I still believe him: he is not a future film star but a teenager, left home alone, about to be very stupid to impress a girl. 

From there, he was a rocket. If you can name an adored, white, male director in the last 50 years, Tom Cruise has probably worked with him: Michael Mann, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Stanley Kubrick, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg, Rob Reiner, Cameron Crowe, Paul Thomas Anderson, and on and on. Notably, you can count on one hand the number of female and/or directors of colour he has worked with. 

In 1992, he set up a film production company with his former manager Paula Wagner, and they essentially produced every movie he made for the next 14 years. He is renowned for exerting a remarkable level of creative control and interest, which most famously means he does a lot of his own increasingly insane stunts.

You can essentially trace the evolution of contemporary film trends, and the health of the wider industry, through the movies Tom Cruise can get made. In the 80s and 90s, he’ll try anything, any genre. Interesting script with a lot of main character screen time and a promising director attached? Thomas Cruise Is On The Phone. 

He’s in a string of critically beloved classics, which I have ranked in the following order of watchability: A Few Good Men (1992), the Colour of Money (1986), Rainman (1988), Fourth of July (1989) and (please do not watch this movie, it’s ghastly) Cocktail (1988). He was rightfully nominated for his second Best Actor Oscar in 1997 for starring in the romantic comedy/sport drama – seriously, it does everything – Jerry McGuire (1997), which finally got two of my friends on the Tom Train, though I think this was only because at the outset Tom says: “I had so much to say and no one to listen”, and my friend Ami immediately turned and said, “Wow, he’s just like Caroline”, which the room found indescribably funny. 

Even the bad movies are often at least ambitiously bad. I have nothing but respect for Eyes Wide Shut (1999), a film my mate Katie still refers to as “Eyes Wide Boredom”, for swinging for the fences and getting weird with it. Legend (1985), Days of Thunder (1990), Far and Away (1992) are all bad but at least vaguely watchable, and not even just because Nicole Kidman is in half of those and it’s nice to see her. They’re all original stories, even the contemporary ones rendered period pieces by virtue of time; full of beautiful people and bizarre plots. He is nothing if not committed to that Irish accent in Far and Away (1992); me and the girls were beside ourselves. It is equal parts indefensible and inspired. 

It is hard to hold this fact in your head, but Cruise originally became famous because he was very good at his job. Before he was Tom Cruise: The Institution, he was Tom Cruise: Good Actor. There’s a moment in Mission: Impossible 2 (2000) where you can tell, within a second, that the person on screen is the villain in a Tom Cruise mask, and not the real Ethan Hunt aka Tom Cruise (there’s no time to explain) just from the look on his face: mean and hard and wrong. Over and over again, Cruise is the best part of the movies he’s in. Flashes of that assured, attuned kid in Risky Business sliding around in his tube socks, so good that he jets right into the A-list actor stratosphere and never comes back down. 

Something in his work shifts in the 2000s, though it’s hard to identify at first. He’s still in massive original movies with huge directors, but they peter out over the decade, with the stunners fewer and farther between. Vanilla Sky (2001), The Last Samurai (2003) and War of the Worlds (2005) all do not land for varying reasons. Lions for Lambs (2007) and Valkyrie (2008) are films made for long-suffering high school history classes. 

There are still highs: at the turn of the century, Cruise stars as a misogynist, Tony Robbins-type in Magnolia (1999). He says, into the camera, “Respect the cock and tame the cunt”, which made my sister reflexively say, “Good lord”. Minority Report (2002) and Collateral (2004) are also two supremely thrilling movies, directed by greats. Notably, he makes a foray into comedy with Tropic Thunder (2008), which, with deepest apologies to every boy ever, I did not like, though Siân and I both agreed Tom was funny in it before we put the J-Lo documentary on. Regardless, the decade as a whole is awkward and stilted, and Cruise looks much more at home in the 90s. 

The 2000s are also when Tom Cruise gets publicly Quite Weird. He becomes the face of Scientology, jumps on Oprah’s couch, declares that postpartum depression is just being a bit bummed out, and thereby burns the bridge to normalcy. 

This specific type of infamy does make it harder for him to disappear into characters, and it shows. This is not to say he isn’t great during this time, because he is, but as my project went on, it became increasingly funny to watch Tom Cruise walk around on screen being called things that are very obviously not his name. He does two movies where he’s a Vincent, and one where he’s a Mitch, and both of these are fine. But Ray? Jasper? Brian? Be serious. Tom Cruise is not called Brian. In Days of Thunder he is called Cole Trickle and everyone involved should be embarrassed by this. While watching every movie, no matter what his character’s name was, all my mates called him Tom. 

But if Tom’s 2000s are weird but still watchable, the 2010s are just depressing. Mostly because the movies he used to make (exciting screenplay, big budget, huge director) are fading from existence. Auteurs who may have once flocked to film are now being enticed away by television, and movies have all but surrendered to the franchise machine. Of the films he is in over this time, Knight and Day (2010) is terrible, American Made (2017) and Rock of Ages (2012) are both passable, and Edge of Tomorrow (2014) is astounding and all of us deserve suffering for letting it flop financially. 

It is in the 2010s that he makes the worst movie of his career, the irredeemable corporate slush that is The Mummy (2017). Deepest apologies to Laura for having to watch it with me and even deeper apologies for briefly falling asleep. The movie is only interesting for its transparent desperation: Tom Cruise trying to create his own Marvel universe to avoid joining the one that already exists. 

That said, if you don’t want to forfeit creative control to the Disney overlords, why not just go all in on the superhero franchise you’ve already been making for 20 years? Ah yes, the Mission: Impossible series, which Tom starred in through the 2000s, only for them to truly come into their own in the 2010s. Even the stellar Top Gun: Maverick (2020) is essentially a Mission: Impossible movie – meaty stunts, big leaps, unreal shots – but gayer. 

Years ago, my friend Shannon said, “For God’s sake, the mission is clearly possible” – and she was right, but only because Tom was there proving it. As his peers flocked to the small screen, Tom Cruise remained without a single acting television credit. 

Cruise has a reverence for thrilling, precise blockbusters, and so the Mission: Impossible franchise is really the perfect summation of his 50-year career. He’ll go anywhere, do anything, to keep you looking. Or, as my flatmate Mamata put it as we watched him scale a building in Mission: Impossible (1996): “He does so many activities.”

I finished my project while visiting my parents, where we watched the fitting final film, the pithily titled Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (2023). The first time I watched this movie was more than a year previously, when it was first released, and I dragged several long-suffering friends to the cinema. Mamata pulled out a packed lunch at the halfway mark, Sophie unceremoniously fell asleep, Will repeatedly told me to shut up, and I drunkenly left my phone in the cinema and made Ami drive me back to The Embassy the next morning. 

This time around, I still ended up defending the three-hour runtime (it builds!) while my mum repeatedly said Tom should let himself go a little grey, and my dad required the entire plot explained back to him scene to scene yet still claimed at the end to have enjoyed it. In a way, Tom and I ended up right back where we started. 

Really, I’ve buried the lede on why I did all of this. I have loved the Cruise Classics (the first few Mission: Impossibles, the original Top Gun) since I was a child, because my father did not believe in democracy when it came to picking movies. He raised my sister, brother and me on everything he loved. The politically indefensible, movie-length military commercial that is Top Gun (1986) is the essential background to most of my childhood, constant as the radio in my mother’s car or my brother’s voice in the backseat. I was destined to love Tom Cruise, that brilliant freak, all my life. We cannot help what makes us.  

You must notice too, when you read this, how the people I love were always there during my project. I watched many of these movies by myself, but I ended up watching more with my friends and family. Dragging them into my inane effort, come hell or high water. Talking with Siân about how All the Right Moves offers genuinely good class commentary. Telling Laura she was ageist after she screamed objectively too loud when the old butler showed up in Eyes Wide Shut. Sitting in the bright, doctor’s-office lighting of Ella’s old apartment, screaming at the slow-motion bullets in Mission: Impossible 2. Surrounded by moving boxes with Soph and Josh, laughing about Vanilla Sky. Trying to ignore Jack Reacher while Ami and I get ready on the floor of the new flat. Hijacking a drinks at Ethan’s with Edge of Tomorrow, and hearing Hamish say it’s just like that Adam Sandler movie Fifty First Dates, and it’s not, but no one can stop laughing long enough to tell him. 

This project was sheer joy and love and lunacy. Gold proof, obvious and forever, of the care and patience of the people who love me.  

I could keep going on about this. I have many pointless Tom Cruise opinions that have no purpose but to disturb strangers in bars, or for me to tell you here. But ultimately, the point of the Thomas Cruise Completionist Project is very simple, and Tom would agree: you should watch a movie tonight with someone you love. 

Back to top
They see me scrollin'