You choose to participate here instead of having face-to-face conversations. Does that mean that face-to-face discussions aren't useful? I walk on sidewalks where cars are prohibited. Does that mean that cars aren't useful? I drive on highways where pedestrians are prohibited. Does that mean walking isn't useful?

Whatever point you're trying to make, this is an extremely ineffective argument for it. You’re in “checkmate, atheists” territory here.

> You choose to participate here instead of having face-to-face conversations.

Nothing about the comment you are replying to implies an abstinence from face-to-face conversations, and the suggestion is not very plausible.

It seems you understand my point.

I take your point, as demonstrated here, that even straightforward written language can be completely misunderstood, and that emoji might help alleviate that, though how they could help in the particular case here is not clear to me.

GGP asserted that if I participate here, where emoji are forbidden, that implies they aren’t as useful as I think they are.

I provide equally ridiculous examples of how engagement in a venue that restricts things has no bearing on whether or not those things are generally useful. It simply means that society has agreed those things aren’t appropriate in every context.

Isn't there a comic about this kind of argument? I don't think emojis add anything, but lack of emojis on HN doesn't say anything about that, other than the creator probably doesn't like them either.