I think it largely depends on how obnoxious they are and weather or not they actually assist in conveying the poster's intended message, or if it's just another >mfw post with some random weird/silly face attached.
I've heard some say body language and facial expressions can often say more than a person's words alone. With that in mind I do think a visual point of reference 'can' help get an idea across, as long as it's used appropriately of course. An image combined with a message can completely change how that message is received. For example; if I used an image of a character looking angry you might view this post as being more aggressive and hostile. Or I could use a cute girl to lower your defenses and make you a little more accepting of what I have to say. Just as OP's image makes his post seem slightly more nonchalant than it would if no image was there.

>>5961
There aren't many topics that would really benefit from us allowing the use of reaction images. 98% of the time it's just smug_anime_girl.jpg used to make fun of somebody, usually without addressing their opinion at all, just 'here, let me laugh at you'. The other 2% is expressing some emotions like anger or sadness; personally I have a really low opinion of people who can't actually express it in words instead of being lazy and posting some angry looking face and '>mfw'.

>I think it largely depends on how obnoxious they are and weather or not they actually assist in conveying the poster's intended message, or if it's just another >mfw post with some random weird/silly face attached.
Basically this.

> I personally think 4chan-tier reaction images (ie: Pepe

You say this, but meanwhile we have two banners with that fucking frog on them.

>>5965
I don't think anyone has ever complained about them before.

>>5966
thats not a meaningful statistic on a site with literally no good posters