Why do people keep saying this idea is violent?
Look, if someone hits the "love" reaction to a post, that doesn't mean you're actually in love withe poster, does it? It doesn't mean that you're engaging in sexual intercourse with them, or that you're raping them. If someone hits the "winner" reaction, it doesn't mean you're actually awarding the person some kind of prize or honor. The "brilliant" reaction is not actually an IQ test. The "informative" reaction does not make the recipient an actual educator.
Of all the reaction options, there are SIX that would be said to be positive, congratulatory, or complimentary. On the other hand there are only TWO that express some kind of rebuff or repudiation. There are THREE that are vague and indeterminate and could be used to express either or neither, depending on context. Indeed, the "funny" reaction (which we should expect to hold a primary purpose of saying someone's post was enjoyed for its humor) is 90% used to imply the reactor is laughing at the poster in a derisive or insulting way. That fact demonstrates that users already long for more effective ways to register their disdain for a post.
I suppose the crybaby participation trophy snowflakes would rather that we get rid of all reactions that aren't a compliment, and would also like to make it against the rules to disagree with anyone, ever. Well, your weakness is pathetic and I wish you would die.
A death wish reaction would be the most severe rejection to a person's post as possible. It's metaphorical. In fact, great care should be taken by the admins to ensure that the normal circuitry that connects a reaction on a website to the release of a cyanide pill into a person's morning coffee is deactivated. The point is that in order to provide a truly open medium for expressing and discussing differences of opinion, equal and opposite avenues of expression should be available. The death wish reaction offers the chance to provide such a better balance within the available reaction buttons.