Implicating tears → crying
Link to implication

Reason:

Same thing really.

What about tears of laughter, etc? I'm not sure if those should be universally tagged as crying..

I disagree with this one. When I think of crying, I think about someone actually breaking down and sobbing, but people's eyes can water up and produce tears without actually crying for a number of other reasons as well, especially in art.

Having a heavy object suddenly dropped onto your foot will do it (if only for comical exaggeration). So will deepthroating a dick. And then there's posts like post #514361 where I'm not sure if tears should be tagged or not, but if they do need to be tagged, then there's definitely no crying going on.

@Genjar @Blodsho Hmm, good points, would this implication work the other way around or is the effect the same?

Really not the same thing at all. I can think of many reasons for tears, that are not crying.

DragonFox69 said:
... would this implication work the other way around or is the effect the same?

Edit: I was going to say that the reverse seems fine, but...

Let's say that a character has their back turned and is sobbing? That'd still be tagged as crying, even though there's no tears visible.

Genjar said:
Let's say that a character has their back turned and is sobbing? That'd still be tagged as crying, even though there's no tears visible.

I was starting to think that too, I guess this implication won't work, I'll just hide it from the forum.

Thanks for helping me out. :)

Um, how do you hide/remove a suggestion from the suggested tag implication list? All I see is a checkbox on the left side but it doesn't seem to do anything.