Exactly what feeling is this face supposed to express? I cannot for the life of me understand what context to use it in.
>>25060124
Disapproval.
>>25060124
>are you trying to fuck with me?(jokingly) or are you kidding me
Honestly I've never seen someone make this face irl but I can only assume this is what its supposed to mean.
>>25060124
Mocking condescension
'high-horse' face
>>25060124
It depicts a feeling of intellectual superiority. The guy looks like he's going "Will you listen to what this nigger is saying right now"
"Ha, yeah right"
"Is this guy for real?"
costanza belittles
>We won the world series
Yeah, in 6 games :^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbOdB84qMo
it means
>yeah, in 6 games
>>25060124
the fact that this thread exists makes me want to kill myself
>>25060124
It's costanza belittles
>>25060124
it is attempting to express the phrase: "I seriously hope you guys don't do this"
any other answer is literally objectively wrong
>>25060728
This. Surprised it wasn't the first answer as it's a classic meme.
>>25060787
>2011
>a classic
I shiggy the diggy
>>25060124
>decoding facial expression
You shouldn't do it. Trying to interpret facial expression is like trying to interpret metaphors: implicitly legitimizing ambiguity.
Not even autistic.
>>25060832
In other words, the only way to get people to communicate directly and explicitly is to refuse to recognize *in*direct, *im*plicit 'communication'. It is the responsible position; it lend you to much personal abuse, but it will help the society in the longer term.
>>25060124
> are you people really going to do this?
> wut?
> i can't believe they did that
> are you serious or just baiting?
>>25060124
>>25060832
enjoy your autism
>>25060879
I am not autistic. I have simply read and talked to enough autistic people to recognize the superiority of their purported inability to decipher non-verbal 'communication': that communicating directly and unambiguously requires you to take responsibility for your words for one.
>>25060919
You are definitely autistic.
>>25060957
People use facial expression when they want (not so) plausible deniability: 'what? I didn't say anything'. It is embarrassing.
>>25061007
Are you going out of your way to sound autistic? You're not making a good case for yourself.
>>25061028
No, just enjoying the, so to say, freedom when one's mind focuses wholly on describing what one sees, thus resulting in longer words or interjections e.g. parenthetical, instead of being preoccupied with perception of one's words -- the intimidation so e.g. not to sound autistic. In autistic people's case, this is innate, in mine, it comes from isolation. When normies find them 'detached', it is just that. Autistic people are as aware of everything around them (someone struggling to calculate change, a traffic commotion), they just don't feel the compulsion, the pull to participate, to react, the strings of mirth or anger or compassion aren't pulled in them by witnessing those in others. For instance, when the cashier manages to give the change, he and the client might laugh -- but their attention and involuntary calculation of the notes isn't uselessly distracted into reacting and sharing the good mood. And so they remain more useful.
>>25061210
In other words -- because there were a lot of mental leaps I see -- I've talked to autistic people just enough to realize what vast swathes of my perception are being prevented by my brain involuntarily preferring to occupy itself with other people's posture, faces, voices, connotations of their choices of phrase, and so on.
>>25061210
>>25061269
Figuratively, a normie/neurotypical/allist's life is jumping like a magnet or an electron or whatever from one person's face to another, always pulling their own extremely close to theirs, watching every muscle closely -- so that they always are scrutinizing *someone* emotionally, if not their partner then a poster on /r9k/, whereas autistic people walk at a distance, and can watch the background, the trees, the traffic, as well -- in reality, things as grammar, or (logical and other) fallacies, or political reasons behind a choice of term (why to define 'aggression' or 'necessity' in such or such way for instance).
>>25060827
>yfw 2007 to 2011 is the same amount of time as 2011 to 2015
It's a classic meme.
>>25060124
Incredulous contempt.Contempt Costanza
>>25060124
Amused contempt
>>25062786You shit-eating sonovabitch.
