Is there a difference between sealioning and just asking for verification of a bold claim? On a forum such as Lemmy, where people are encouraged to have unsolicited debate in the comments, are we by nature immune from the worst aspects of sealioning?
There is. Sealioning is when you know damn well your position is wrong or otherwise odious, but rather than confront that point (or come right out and say it) you instead pester the other party incessantly to support every single little claim they make with the usually unspoken implication that everyone should think those claims are false.
The difference is that individuals engaging in Sealioning are not doing so in good faith, and the acid test comes about pretty quickly they they don’t address or digest any of the points you’ve supported with evidence/sources and instead move the goalposts immediately and pivot to quibbling about something else and demanding a source for that, instead.
Another Sealioning trick is to fixate on something you said or take it out of context, build a straw man of your argument, and demand evidence/sources for the argument you did not technically make – ideally, a straw man argument that is deliberately unsupportable, or is attacking a matter of your opinion and not a fact but treating it as if it should be supported by citations and evidence. E.g., I don’t like Metallica because I think Lars Ulrich is a douchebag. Sealion: “Excuse me, but can you provide a source attesting to Lars Ulruch personally being a douchebag to you?” No, I just don’t like him because he rubs me the wrong way plus the whole Napster thing back in the day. “Well, since you have not addressed my polite request for a source attesting to Lars Ulrich personally being a douche to you, [ignoring the supportable claim about the Napster thing] your opinion about not like Metallica is obviously laughably absurd [and therefore you are deserving of the ridicule and inserts I am about to heap on you, or will direct others to make at you].” Etc.
Spot in. And then there’s the concern trolling, “it’s important that you provide evidence for your disturbing claims about Lars Ulrich because otherwise you discredit the #metoo movement”.
None of that is demonstrated in the comic, it’s a bad example.
Yep, pretty much.
I’ve been accused of Sealioning for literally sourcing one claim… with five different sources… Just one claim.
I don’t have time to go through 5 different sources! Quit Sealioning!
It’s not sealioning…
Quit gish galloping then!
Guys… providing multiple sources for your argument isn’t a fallacy. It’s literally just sourcing your fucking claims lmfao.
Ahh, the fallacy fallacy, ironically the most common fallacy I encounter online.
The difference is intention. The intention of the sea lion is not to convince you that your claim is wrong or immoral; it’s to shut you up, by draining your desire to make the claim, since every time that you do it, a sea lion pops up to annoy the shit out of you.
That’s a problem because nobody knows the others’ intentions - at most we lie that we know. We can at most guess it - but to guess it accurately, without assuming/making shit up, you need to expend even more “mental energy” engaging the user, or looking for further info (e.g. checking their profile).
On a forum such as Lemmy, where people are encouraged to have unsolicited debate in the comments, are we by nature immune from the worst aspects of sealioning?
No. I’ve seen sea lions in oldschool forums and in Reddit, even if in both you’re encouraged to debate in the comments; so Lemmy is not immune by nature against that.
They’re just “dressed” in a different way; in Reddit for example your typical sea lion says “I don’t understand, [insert question making a straw man of your proposition]? I’m so confused…” instead of asking you to back up your claim.
The difference is intention. The intention of the sea lion is not to convince you that your claim is wrong or immoral; it’s to shut you up, by draining your desire to make the claim, since every time that you do it, a sea lion pops up to annoy the shit out of you.
Hexbear in a nutshell.
I don’t know, really. But I feel that Hexbear is mostly misinterpreted - I don’t think that they’re trying to sealion, it’s more like an out-of-place “debate me~” childish cringe. I might be wrong though, as I mentioned in the second paragraph nobody knows the others’ intentions.
Hexbear has the same problem as Reddit: it’s home to a handful of active, loud, incredibly toxic communities that like to go into other people’s online spaces and be assholes.
Also: if you go there and do what they do elsewhere, you get banned.
If these spaces have a rule like “no talking if you’re a man” that’s understandable, but what other kinds of “other people’s” spaces are you referring to?
Yeah, Hexbear wants hearts and minds, they’re just really bad at it.
The intention of the sea lion is not to convince you that your claim is wrong or immoral; it’s to shut you up, by draining your desire to make the claim, since every time that you do it, a sea lion pops up to annoy the shit out of you.
To be honest, if someone is saying some bigoted shit that is exactly what I’m doing. I don’t expect to change the bigots opinion. My intention is:
- to point out the obvious flaw to anyone else reading the comment.
- make it clear that the argument they are making should not be blindly taken as fact, and
- let them know that when they spout bigoted views they will be challenged on them.
You made me notice that my comment is missing a key element: sealioning always includes a farce of a polite engagement. “Nooo, I don’t want you to shut the fuck up, I just want you to reconsider your position. I’m being friendly, why are you [being rude|ignoring it]?”
That farce is simply not there on the way that you described that you do against people saying bigoted shit.
Do you believe that all disagreement that isn’t bitter and angry is farcical?
I’m not wasting my time answering all assumptions that you might come up with.
The underlying assumption on your part being that no one could genuinely want you to reconsider your position, or indeed that your position could be even slightly flawed. Think about what you’re saying, “Sealioning is when people politely ask me questions to clarify a position that I took”. So?
Not only are you not open to changing your position, you are offended by the very notion that even a small aspect of your position could ever be reconsidered. Incredible. I’m trying not to be too polite, otherwise you might claim that I’m sealioning you again 😂
Sealioning is when people politely ask me questions to clarify a position that I took
This is it. The term “sealioning” seems purpose-built to enable people to escape situations where they are asked to demonstrate critical thinking.
As I told you in the other thread: if you want a meaningful reply, drop off the sealioning.
And yes, you’re still sealioning, even if your façade of politeness dropped.
Your definition of sealioning, that it’s defined by intention, that it involves a mask, these are all non-falsifiable. You realize that right? They contain no mechanism for accepting new information from outside your ideology, and make your mind starve to death.
This overall approach to things — to operate on the basis that all is known and understood and that those who disagree or behave as if there might be incompleteness in the knowledge — is what the term “totalitarian” refers to.
A classic example of “totalitarian” thinking is if you solve a game like tic-tac-toe. Having a game 100% solved, ie having computed every move, and therefore having 100% certainty as to the optimal play strategy, is a situation where you’ve encapsulated the totality of the game in your mind.
The idea that the totality of existence, of real life situations, is already known and the optimal strategy already computed, is “totalitarian”.
A totalitarian dictatorship is one in which that totality of understanding, and the resulting certainty of optimal strategy, is used to justify stripping subjects of all freedom. Any deviation from the optimal is considered bad, so freedom is worthless.
And of course there are degrees of totalitarianism, expressed implicitly in aspects of culture.
Science, by its emphasis on putting empirical observation above theory in terms of trust, allows for external information to update itself. Science is not totalitarian in that sense.
The term “Sealioning”, by enabling people to decide that any interaction at any time possesses a particular intention (un-observable, non-falsifiable), or that a particular mask is being used (un-observable, non-falsifiable), that they can just ignore the interaction and cast aspersions on the person they’re interacting with.
[EDIT reason: clipping and rewording for less verbosity.]
TL;DR: sealioning is about either how or why you convey a discourse, not the discourse itself. Over your whole comment, you’re treating it as the later, thus making a fool of yourself and wasting my time.
Your definition of sealioning, that it’s defined by intention […] these are all non-falsifiable. You realize that right?
No shit Sherlock. Otherwise I wouldn’t have myself said that “That’s a problem because nobody knows the others’ intentions - at most we lie that we know.”
However, the concept is still useful once you rework it to rely on behaviour (that is observable and falsifiable). And effectively, that’s what people should do; alongside weighting out some risk that their claim might be wrong.
mask
I said “farce”, not “mask”. That said: farces are mostly behaviour, and your point regarding “mask” is secondary and moot.
They contain no mechanism for accepting new information from outside your ideology
That’s like complaining against an orange tree for containing no mechanism to squeeze juice.
Sealioning is not the discourse itself being conveyed, but how [if based on behaviour] or why [if based on intentions]; mechanisms regarding acceptance or rejection of new info relate to the later, not to the former.
Regarding “ideology”: sealioning is not just used with ideological discourses.
and make your mind starve to death.
You’re opposing the concept of sealioning based on its reliance on something non-falsifiable, like “intentions”… and its effect on something equally non-falsifiable, someone’s “mind”. Congratulations for shooting your own foot.
This overall approach to things — to operate on the basis that all is known and understood
You’re babbling yet another assumption. That is false, usage of the concept of sealioning does not imply or require such approach. Stop assuming = making shit up.
All your babble (yup) from the 2nd to 5th paragraphs is built under the assumption that this idiotic statement is true, so I can safely skip to the part where you’re talking about science.
Science, by its emphasis on putting empirical observation above theory in terms of trust, allows for external information to update itself. Science is not totalitarian in that sense.
Already addressed: sealioning being how or why a discourse is being conveyed, not the discourse itself.
Side note: let us not pretend (or worse, assume) that falsificationism is not the only scientific method out there.
The term “Sealioning”, by enabling people to decide that any interaction at any time possesses a particular intention (un-observable, non-falsifiable), or that a particular mask is being used (un-observable, non-falsifiable), that they can just ignore the interaction and cast aspersions on the person they’re interacting with.
Besides being a fallacy / irrationality known as “appeal to consequences”, this chunk of babble relies on things already contradicted.
From your other comment:
If every time you make a claim, someone pops up and asks you for a source and you can’t provide it, you should stop.
I’m going to require you a source on that. Over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseam. If you can’t provide it, follow your own advice and shut up. /s
If you can provide it, don’t worry - I’ll ask for source on something else, preferably some triviality, and the cycle repeats. Recursively.
Are you getting the picture? Your comment works under the assumption/idiocy that people not sourcing their claims do it because of inability to do so; sealioning exploits the fact that countering bullshit wastes your time and patience, so even if you can rebuke it, you’ll eventually give up out of sheer annoyance.
And before you babble “but in syense lol lmao” - even in an academic environment, if you’re dragging discussion down by asking questions that you’re expected to know the answer of, someone is bound to “politely” tell you to “please inform yourself beforehand on those trivial matters, if you want to engage in this discussion” aka “fuck off”.
Here are two hypothetical situations that might clarify your blatant confusion regarding the usage of the word “sealion”, and exemplify the usage of behaviour instead of “intentions” to demarcate sealioning.
Situation A:
- [You] Damn, a glass of water after work is great.
- [Alice] You’re drinking water. Water is poisonous.
- [You] No, it is not. Stop making stuff up.
- [Alice] Okay, but don’t whine afterwards when you get poisoned.
- [Alice leaves]
- [a day passes by]
- [You] I was drinking water yesterday, and it was great.
Situation B:
- [You] Damn, a glass of water after work is great.
- [Bob] You’re drinking water. I’ll have you know that water is poisonous.
- [You] No, it is not. Stop making stuff up.
- [Bob] Why are you so aggressive? I’m just informing you.
- [You] No, water is not poisonous. Water is safe. It’s good for you. Please stop wasting my time.
- [Bob] Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that water is safe?
- [You] I’m busy drinking my water. Can you excuse me?
- [Bob] I shall return later.
- [a day passes by]
- [You] I was drinking water yesterd…
- [Bob] I see that you’re mentioning that poisonous substance again. I don’t understand, why someone would harm themselves? I’m so confused…
- [You] Bob, fuck off.
- [Bob] Apparently you lack arguments to defend your outrageous claim that water is safe to drink. Such lack of rationality, I’m just trying to have a friendly conversation and inform you on the risks of the substance that you’re ingesting.
Even if both Alice and Bob are conveying the same stupid discourse (“water is poisonous”), only one of them is sealioning - Bob. Why?
[Feel free to analyse this through mind/intention/etc. or behaviour. Refer to the sealion comic for reference.]
finally, someone took the time to unpack the lie of sealioning
If I’m sealioning, you’re walrusing. Which one of us is refusing to address the content of the discussion? It’s now twice that you’ve done to me exactly what you claim that I’m doing to you. There was also a third time you didn’t respond at all, which is actually preferable to your current walrusing. Btw walrusing is when you make an argument, and then claim that any response is in bad faith, thus bypassing your obligation to actually clarify or defend your position in any way.
You immediately claimed that I was sealioning after I made one single comment? That doesn’t make any sense and you know it.
Respond to the person you are interacting with, not to your own personal insecurities. Read the words that I have written down, parse them, and compose a response.
Actually, it’s fine, I’m not particularly curious about the content of your earlier comment anymore, because I no longer have any suspicion that it might have been anything of value. But you should still reflect on what I have told you because it’s pretty silly to act like this, especially on Lemmy.
You know I think I would modify that intention. I’ve found it’s better not to argue sort of, for some third party observer, or, to argue just to wear them down, but I think it’s better to argue just for yourself, for your own sake. It still kind of requires a good ability for discernment, but if you can find a sealion that can keep you sharp, that’s probably good enough. Less noble is maybe just arguing with them because you personally find it amusing, which is also probably not a terrible thing.
Generally, though, I always kind of wonder generally why it is that the time-tested and great advice of “don’t feed the trolls” has tended to fall by the wayside over the years, if it was ever really followed at all. I suppose only one person needs to falter to register as an engagement, but it’s pretty hard for an uncoordinated effort to end up flooding a site with propaganda, because people just tend to give up (or in lots of instances, self-isolate, which is maybe a different problem) if they get ignored enough.
I find “Don’t feed the trolls” is less of a concern on a site like Lemmy that filters by up and down votes. The trolls get filtered to the bottom and don’t clutter everyone’s feeds. The more of the troll’s time I waste the less they can spend trolling other people.
Something like Steam Community Forums where a thread gets bumped to the top every time it receives a new reply, dear God stop feeding the trolls! It makes it an unusable mess.
Something like Steam Community Forums where a thread gets bumped to the top every time it receives a new reply, dear God stop feeding the trolls! It makes it an unusable mess.
I would argue, probably poorly, that this also happens to a much, much lesser extent when you feed a troll on a site like lemmy.
Nah, my concern is kind of more that trolls, truly bad faith arguers, should ideally be handled more by functions like spam filters and good moderation, than being this sort of thing that we constantly have to juggle around, shaking keys in front of their faces in order to distract them from responding to one person. In a trolling war, where you have to troll the trolls, the trolls always win. There’s some blogpost that I can no longer dig up from my internet history, about how similar lessons were learned in EVE Online, by people trying to win wars of attrition against the Goonswarm, the in-game SomethingAwful board users.
The takeaway from the writeup was kinda that the only effective countermeasures is basically just to kind of, have more effective moderation, and banning people who would take it too far.
Edit: browsing down a little more, your approach to just, have them suffer death by a million papercuts, and maybe just kind of expose them and publically shame them, rather than engage in a protracted counter-trolling kind of thing, that makes sense to me as a strategy I hadn’t really considered. Probably an effective one, too, especially as multiple strategies tend to increase in efficacy as they lend themselves to one another. So, neat.
The drawback of wanting to use software to handle the people who disagree with you is … hopefully obvious. I’m too tired to write it up.
But like you see the obvious problem with that, and why having human intelligence interacting with “the set of people I’m calling trolls” is necessary long term right?
Straight up, no, I don’t. I think that free speech online is kind of a perpetual techno-libertarian pipe dream that gets pushed at the behest of (mostly) corporate interests onto the optimistic and naive. If you let the trolls take an inch, they take a mile. I don’t even necessarily just mean like, white supremacist ideologues, or whatever, either, right, but I also mean like, corporate propaganda. Anyone with outstanding resources online can pretty easily sway public sentiment. People reported that you could buy upvotes on reddit, you can likewise buy comments, and if you play it correctly you can consistently dominate the front page. You can do this not only with reddit, but basically any other form of social media engagement as well.
This isn’t to advocate in favor of people self-isolating into echo chambers, right, it’s more to advocate for people just making more conscious decisions on who they engage with, which I think nobody tends to regularly do, because how social media works is that it preys on your base instincts and weaknesses. If you are to engage with a troll, a bad faith actor, you need to be getting something out of the exchange. You, personally. Maybe social shaming also works as a strategy for content moderation like that guy was saying, I dunno. But I think most people aren’t consciously making these decisions when they decide to engage with trolls, they’re just arguing nonsense points with someone who doesn’t give a shit about them, and then, you know, big shocker when they get frustrated and mad.
That’s not helping anyone to see alternative perspectives. If anything, it’s gonna cause people to become more reaffirmed in their own ideology, if they see that their only opposition is like, horrible dicks, basically. It’s not steel-manning the opposition, when that occurs. I mean, in some sense, that’s why trolling tends to happen most consistently, right? It’s because people want to venture outside their echo chamber, and get fresh meat, but then they do so in such a way that they’re engaging adversely, not putting in any effort, whatever, and then they just end up making everyone around them mad, and probably themselves, and then they fall deeper into their own ideology. Especially when their in-group has, knowingly or not, given them a kind of memetic scent that they (the troll) doesn’t fully understand, a marker that they’re someone from the outside. See: every time someone is able to explain communism to their conservative co-workers, who like it, so long as they don’t use the word “communism”. Million other examples along those lines. It’s like a mormon going door-to-door, or something
I think it’s probably a better case if you’re just letting everyone stay in their own zone, using heavy handed moderation to prevent this sort of dumb shit from occurring, and then occasionally you let people in if they’re showing that they’re acting in good faith, and are capable of like, actually offering good counterarguments and good viewpoints. If you’re wanting to have an actually good time on the internet then I think it’s probably gonna be better to hand those decisions off to someone else. Obviously that’s something you have to take on faith, but it’s much, much easier to actually engage with the stuff you want to, if you’re not falling victim to obvious rage bait every 10 posts.
I always kind of wonder generally why it is that the time-tested and great advice of “don’t feed the trolls”
For the same reason “if you see something, say something” would stop getting adhered to if people got sloppy, or self-serving, with their interpretations of the word “something”.
The concept of “troll” used to mean: Inducing a person to spend lots of effort responding to some nonsense, as a way of messing with them.
Now the word “troll” refers to: Any and all bad actors online. Which includes people who ask me politely for sources when I make bold claims. They’re the baddies, and I know because of this baddie checklist:
- Polite
- Asking questions
- Claims to want to understand me
- Wants to see sources
This is true of me too. When I ask for a source, I’m about 95% sure it’s not going to be provided because it doesn’t exist, and that is my way of demonstrating the falsity of the claim.
A big component of sealioning, as I think you’ve pointed out, is one party pretending to not understand the intent or argument behind your reasoning and rephrasing it in a way to make it sound ridiculous, but in the form of a question. The goal is to counter someone’s argument by hoping that they don’t have the argumentative or expressive capacity to succinctly clarify themselves or identify that you’re asking questions in bad faith.
A big component of sealioning, as I think you’ve pointed out, is one party pretending to not understand the intent or argument behind your reasoning and rephrasing it in a way to make it sound ridiculous, but in the form of a question.
Yup. That’s called a strawman. Strawmen are really common when sealioning, as they increase the effort necessary for a meaningful reply - because first you’ll need to dismantle the strawman, then counter-argument.
It isn’t a key component though. You can achieve the same effect through a red herring, tu/ille quoque (aka what-about-ism), or even a false dichotomy.
I like this explanation.
If every time you make a claim, someone pops up and asks you for a source and you can’t provide it, you should stop.
To add one more aspect: When someone writes a reply asking for a source, did they actually do a short Google-search related to the claim? It basically takes the same time to just look at the summary of the search results as asking for a source. So I assume if someone asks for verification for an easily searchable fact, then they are acting in bad faith.
Also one more thing: If you notice someone acting in bad faith, don’t engage with them. Downvote them, move on. This is especially true for the next few months until the US elections are over. You will notice it a day after the elections that the quality of discussions will increase because the bad faith actors will take a vacation. What happened on Reddit in 2016 is happening here right now.
When someone writes a reply asking for a source, did they actually do a short Google-search related to the claim?
no one is responsible for supporting our argument except you.
Yeah, I feel the same. If you are making claims with no source people should be allowed to ask for the source without needing to look themselves.
Exactly. If I ask someone for a source on something I feel is wrong it’s because I specifically want to know the information they’re working from. If I look it up straight away and send them a link that says they’re wrong straight out of the gate they aren’t even going to open it.
Do you have any evidence supporting your position that this is the proper way to debate a sealion?
To add one more aspect: When someone writes a reply asking for a source, did they actually do a short Google-search related to the claim? It basically takes the same time to just look at the summary of the search results as asking for a source. So I assume if someone asks for verification for an easily searchable fact, then they are acting in bad faith.
This point rubs me a little wrong both on the basis that
A) onus of proof falls on the one making the claim
B) if it takes the same amount of time to find the answer as it took for them to ask you, then logically it takes the same amount of time to include a source for anyone that wants further reading as it would to make them look for it
and (most importantly)
C) you can find pretty much anything on the internet if you’ve got 12 minutes to dedicate to looking through all the clickbait.
The result becomes that I can say any batshit thing I want to and now it’s your job to discredit your own stance for me, and if you aren’t convinced, you aren’t googling hard enough. Instead of just asking and finding out I got it from The Onion, which I would naturally be very against having to say out loud.
While it might not take a long time to search for something, its also not unreasonable to ask for the OPs reasoning/evidence. Outside of the blindingly obvious, if you make a claim it’s on you to back it up. Even for the blindingly obvious sometimes its only clear to you. Otherwise, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
See Russells teapot
I’ve had sealions ask me for a source that the sun shines during the day before. The idea is to wear your opponent down. It’s not a good faith line of questioning.
At which point you point out their obvious bad faith argument and stop responding.
If you notice someone acting in bad faith, don’t engage with them
I find that relentless mockery is the best way of countering a sealion. Don’t cede the field to them. But also don’t get drawn into a bad faith argument. Just insult and make fun of them until they leave.
That just feeds their persecution complex and their argument that “You don’t have any rebuttal, just insults!”
Don’t get into a drawn out conversation with them, but a field of people giving simple responses pointing out the obvious flaws it what they are saying drowns out their message to any outside observer and shows why they are incorrect.
I just link to the comic at that point
When I’m not sure, I just give them the benefit of the doubt. For example, there’s a good chance that the person replying to me speaks English well, but it’s not their first language. Also, their cultural norms might be very different from my own. It could be a simple misunderstanding, too. Overreacting would just make things worse.
When it’s obvious that the person replying is just being a pedantic nuisance, though, I merely stop responding. They may think they’ve “won”, but so what? I can go to bed knowing I don’t waste my time sealioning.
They may think they’ve “won”, but so what?
The point of internet arguments is not to convince your opponent. That never happens.
The point is to convince the audience, and if you just leave then it looks like the sealion is right.
When the comment chain goes on long enough, there is no more audience.
Depends. If it’s a subject I feel strongly about I’ll go down the whole damn chain upvoting and downvoting as applicable.
Addendum: when a comment chain goes on long enough in both length and time since the original post, there is no more audience.
One of the things I miss about forum threads sorted by most recent comment
At which point the sea lioning has been obvious. You’re not going to see the person you disagree with getting the “last word” and think they “won”.
Nah. It almost always devolves into one person making an effort while the other’s just being an ass.
That would be a draw imo
The point of internet arguments is not to convince your opponent. That never happens.
Why do you think that is?
Human psychology, probably.
The thing is a true sealion only “wins” by dragging you into a long offtopic comment chain.
Professional sealions (we don’t have them here yet thank god) come armed with a list of “talking points” they use to try to derail genuine conversations and turn them into something else.
Damn, that’s sad. I have nothing but pity for anyone who considers themselves a “true” or “professional” sea lion.
Eh, they get paid.
I’m talking about the 50 Cent-ers, the BJP IT, the Hasbara trolls, the Russian troll army, the Indonesian troll army etc etc etc.
Not sure what they conceptualize it as but they do tend to sealion.
Pretty sure Zucc has one as well, and that dodgy remote work company that advertises on Reddit definitely employs a couple of people.
They may think they’ve “won”, but so what?
Yeah, I think this is kind of the correct mentality. The currency of trolls is (you)s, you should only feed trolls if they’re giving you something actually interesting or novel or amusing in return, rather than getting baited, or giving up and ignoring it altogether. I think it’s important for people to reward comments that they like with thought-out responses, rather than the other way around.
Yeah there’s a difference. @dual_sport_dork described it well.
But no we’re not 100% immune from it. I’ve seen a few people try to do it.
Is there a difference between sealioning and just asking for verification of a bold claim?
Depends if the person wants to answer or avoid the question. If they want to avoid it, you’re sea lioning.
To expand on what others have said:
If you say “Trump praised president Xi for being a ruler for life” and someone asks for a source. That’s fair because it’s a specific claim you can and should get a source for.
If youre saying “Trump is a right wing grifter” an someone asks for a source, they are sealioning, because its something that’s readily apparent to most people but would be more difficult to provide a source for and even if you did provide examples of him grifitng, the nature of a grift being a lie means it’s difficult to 100% conclusively prove, even if its obvious to everyone, it let’s the sealioner have plausible deniability to assume it’s nit a grift.
That’s when you start your next comment with “On this article I will provide logical proof that…” Then proceed to write a several thousand words treatise about the topic that slowly transitions into Shrek smut fanfiction, then try to see how far into the text they notice. People forget that a source is just a fancy way of saying “someone else said once that”. Not all sources are valid or authoritative. If I am making a subjective claim, I don’t need any fucking source, I am the source bitch.
The statement was “I could do without sea lions”. That’s a statement of opinion, not a bold claim.
This strip has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you make a statement in a public forum, don’t be surprised when the public responds. They are not entitled to your attention, but you’re not entitled to their silence. I will not be providing any sources to back up my position, but I’m sure your requests for them will be very witty.
If you make a statement in a public forum, don’t be surprised when the public responds
Sure. That’s not what sealioning is, though. As the comic illustrates, sealioning is bad faith weaponizing of false politeness and feigned high mindedness, not honest inquiry.
deleted by creator
Sure, but the comic both starts with a public comment that they still refused to engage with and makes it like, weirdly racist?
It’s funny, but diffuses the message a bit.
It does stick with you though, so it has that going for it.
How was it a “public comment”? Two people were talking to one another. The sealion interrupted their conversation and inserted itself into it. Then it followed them around instead of fucking off when shown it was not welcome in their even more private lives. Not everything needs to be a debate, not everything said needs to be debunked / supported by evidence beyond every miniscule amount of doubt. Know when to leave, simple.
Mr. Sealion overhears a conversation in public with clearly racist messaging and politely asks why he’s hated.
Then he does things that depict the blatant stereotyping as correct.
You guys can pretend it’s not on the whole a weird message if you want, it just makes you the lesser for it.
Or the “sealion” represents the kinds of people that engages in that behavior and has nothing to do with race.
that’s the cool part about “representing” and “racism”
I don’t hate POC, I just hate the “urban”, “lazy”, “criminal”, etc…
you know those KINDS of people (look, I can’t help it that the terfs who made this shit also happen to side with nazis)
So why did the author use language deliberately evocative of racial debates?
Because the author, humorously, made the sealion a sealion
“sealion” is not a race.
So why did the author use language deliberately evocative of racial debates?
Her: I don’t mind most people. But racists? I could do without racists.
Him: Don’t say that out loud!
racist: Pardon me, I couldn’t help but overhear…
Him: Now you’ve done it
[…]
My edit kind of ruins the whole sea lion sealioning visual joke but I hope my point comes across well enough.
I am sure some people who troll racist would do some sealioning but they are doing it in bad faith cus. Ya know, racists.
I get that you can group people based on race but you can also do it based on what they believe in, which I feel the latter is what most people thought David Malki was going for.
…is this satire?
To add what other people have said: the sealion in the comic is following them around and being obnoxious. It even follows them to their bedroom.
One aspect of sealioning is continually trying to “debate” someone for something they once said, even if they’re currently engaged in a completely unrelated conversation.
But the reality they’re referencing is someone being “in their house” in the sense of being in their tweet replies. Nobody is following you around online, you’re carrying them around in your pocket.
Nobody is following you around online
i invite you to look at my inbox
I invite you to not look at your phone, the internet is ironically not a private place
i don’t understand what this means
What inbox? Like people are sending you angry emails? Still doesn’t really have a “following you around” vibe.
my inbox on lemmy. there are users who will follow me from thread to thread harassing me about an argument we had days ago, or will bring it up out of context if i reply to them, which happens often when i don’t pay attention to the username. some of them make posts an comments whining about how biased the mods are when their harassing comments are removed or they get banned, and some have even gone so far as to start maintaining multiple identities to continue to spread misinformation and harass me and other users.
and the invitation to see my inbox was a bit hyperbolic. in truth, you only need to look at my comment history and the few individuals with whom i have had protracted disagreements should leap out at you.
some people will definitely follow you around online if you rub them the wrong way.
That seems more like you are going to hang out in a place where those people also hang out, and are encountering them there, as opposed to them following you around.
that’s, obviously, not how I would characterize it, but if you need to be right you can think whatever you want.
deleted by creator
The proper response would have been to apologize at the first opportunity.
Did anyone else read the sea lion’s voice in a British accent?
Yes, but I read all of their voices in a British accent because I’m British
stop that please
I read it in the voice of Ben Shapiro. Like nails on a chalkboard lol
deleted by creator
He soundsexactly how you think he does.
I’m simultaneously envious of and happy for you that you don’t 😄
I would to have a civil conversation about your statement.
I read it as Sexual Harassment Panda for some reason.
Ambien Walrus for me.
Nope. Australian.
Other related argument techniques used on the internet (and elsewhere) often commingled with Sealioning:
Butwhataboutism is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.
Also, ignoring the rebuttal and constantly shifting the attack to a tangentially related part of the discussion forcing the opponent to defend and rebut each new point, generally exhausting them and causing frustration and irritation.
JAQing off is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.
Moving the Goalposts in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Closely related to butwhataboutism.
Appeal to Hypocrisy (tu quoque) basically tries to invalidate your opponent’s argument by using a “your side did it too, worse” and shift the argument to them defending themselves.
And don’t forget the good old ad hominem, where instead of addressing any points, it attacks the one who made it in an attempt to intimidate the one making the point and applying peer pressure on others reading it to keep them away from that position.
Had someone use that on me earlier today lol. They aren’t particularly effective on Lemmy, I’ve noticed. On Reddit, it depended on if they are for or against the popular circle jerk.
Also on the list is the Argument from fallacy : just because I’m an idiot who presented my stance poorly doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it just means I failed to prove I’m right
Or stated differently: A lack of proof is not a disproof. It’s not even evidence.
Yep. That happens at the end when they get pissed they cannot “win”. Usually those engaged in the above tactics are well versed in exhausting their opponents rather than making it personal, though it does happen.
Important detail, regarding argumentum ad hominem (AAH): a lot of people incorrectly conflate the fallacy with insults, even if both things are independent. For example, let’s say that someone said “the Moon is made of green cheese”. Here are four possible answers:
Replies With insult Without insult With AAH You’re a bloody muppet, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust. You’re no astronomer, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust. Without AAH Yeah, because there’s totally cheese orbiting Earth for a bazillion years, right? Bloody muppet. Cheese wouldn’t be orbiting Earth for so long without spoiling. This conflation between ad hominem and insults interacts really funny with sealioning. Sometimes you get the sea lion claiming that you’re using AAH because you lost patience with its stupidity, but they’re also prone to use non-insulting AAH.
The insults never add anything useful to arguments and still appeal to the same basic things as insults alone, even if they are accompanied by logically sound arguments. And while they don’t logically weaken a position, they can emotionally weaken it for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness.
Rage and anger might feel powerful, but they actually betray a sense of a lack of control. Trolls take advantage of this because it’s a sign they are getting to you. Plus it’s rare that people respond to insults by agreeing with the one who insulted them and the times when they do usually involve an appeal to authority (where the insulter has authority to back up their position and challenging them can have consequences).
If you’re measuring argument “strength” logically, the first paragraph is false; and if you’re doing it rhetorically, it’s misleading.
On logical grounds, insults neither add nor subtract appeal to the argument. That can be seen in the example: at the core, the argument in the bottom left could be rephrased to remove the insult, and it would still convey the same reasoning. Emotional factors shouldn’t be considered on first place..
And, on rhetorical grounds, insults can weaken or strengthen a position depending on the claim, context, and audience. (A good example of that would be the old “fuck off Nazi”.)
for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness. [plus the second paragraph]
This is an audience matter, so it applies to the rhetorical strength of the argument, not the logical one: I don’t argument for the sake of assumers, and claims to recognise frustration out of how others convey an argument is assumer tier irrationality. As such, even if insults would weaken the argument for them, I don’t care.
In fact, they’re perhaps the major reason why I personally would recur to insults - to discourage their participation, since assumers are as much of a burden as sea lions (for roughly the same reasons).
If, however, you do argument for the benefit of this sort of trashy individual, be aware that even the assumers might react positively towards insults against a third party. Some will make shit up that you’re “weak” and “frustrated”; some, that you’re “strong” and “brave”. It’ll depend on the general acceptability of the claim that you’re making on first place.
It’s a clever method of trolling. But if you come prepared and/or are willing to put some effort in, you actually can wreck them with evidence and sound arguments that shuts them completely up.
This is very satisfying.
This is why we need seal clubbing
I don’t know. They stay out too late, get way too drunk and make a terrible racket when they get home.
Can you provide evidence of one time this has ever happened in your area?
I constantly see ads for hot tight seals in my area.
Pardon me, I couldn’t help but overhear…
Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?
I’m just curious if you have any sources to back up your opinion that seal lions need clubbing.
Fair enough, could you club me instead?
Beat and kill them while they’re young and innocent before they become well informed, intelligent adults that can counter and challenge your firmly held beliefs?
IM GONNA CLUB THIS SEAL TO MAKE A BETTER DEAL
It’s also frustrating because there are people who are sincerely trying to discuss in good faith while having a different opinion, which is camouflage for the sealion trolls.
Of course, people increasingly forget about the former group completely, and react with hostility… It’s understandable, but unfortunate for healthy discussion.
At least in your case, your response is to lay out robust arguments to explain your position, which is productive regardless of whether they’re trolling or sincere. I’ve learned a great deal over the years from strangers on the internet putting a clinic on someone who may or may not have been trolling.
Accusing people of “sealioning” is a great way to not have to defend or discuss poorly thought out or sourced claims.
True, which is why if someone accuses you of sealioning you should be prepared to explain your position and the reasoning you used to get there. Not asking questions of them but instead explaining your own position.
The problem I see is when the original poster didn’t explain their point of view, but complain when you ask them to clarify.
Well, in the specific case provided in the comic, the sealion has no position he can explain since the other side refuses to even establish how he got to his opinion.
I guess a corollary would be, first, don’t actually sealion.
So, the issue is that behaviorwise they’re indistinguishable from each other.
Intentionally or unintentionally ignoring signals that a person isn’t interested in debate or discussion with you is just as annoying to the person being bothered either way.
It doesn’t matter if your intentions are sincere or not when you decide to pester someone into a debate they’re not interested in having.
Yeah true, the persistent pestering component is arguably always trolling. I guess that’s one of the signals that you can use to distinguish.
I can still think of gray areas, but I guess that’s why it’s effective camouflage.
Another signal is their complete lack of interest in anything you’ve said outside of what they want to pester you about.
Care to provide any evidence to support this claim? I would like to have a civil discussion with you about this. /s
Just an anecdotal account. I was expressing my own experiences and how they make me feel, for which it would be challenging and largely unnecessary to provide evidence to a random dumbass on the internet, yes?
/not s, an example
If your feelings are irrational, it’s incumbent on you as a rational person to examine them and separate emotion from fact. Since you have no facts to back up your feelings, clearly the feelings are irrational and should not be used to inform your actions or viewpoints, correct?
Not if I’m recounting a personal experience, no. Humans are not purely rational creatures, otherwise laissez faire capitalism would solve all the world’s problems.
If I wished to be purely rational, then perhaps. But personally I do not think all feelings are worth disregarding.
Would you mind providing evidence of a scenario in which it’s good to be irrational? Because it sounds like you have some level of distaste for being rational, but I’m not seeing any source to back that up.
No, that’s a frankly absurd request. What is or is not “good” is not something sourceable, it’s an entirely subjective question. What makes you think everything has some definitive source?
Excuse you, I’m being polite here and you’re calling me absurd. Can’t a person have a civil conversation without devolving into name-calling? And why haven’t you given a source? Are you unable to back up your claims, or are you unwilling to engage in rational dialogue?
Would you mind providing evidence of a scenario in which it’s good to be irrational?
I think I found the seal club, guys.
Asking someone to provide evidence of a scenario in which something is irrational is an irrational thing to ask. I’ll state why with a kind of example. So, say you have the choice between two boxes of corn flakes. You look between the two, and you decide to pick one. You, you specifically, decide to pick one. Perhaps, the red one, over the blue one, I can’t state this for you. Make up a reason why you chose that box. Now, this reason, which you have chosen, would it necessarily be a rational reason, for you to have chosen the box you did?
Presumably, yes, unless you’re going to argue against yourself, and say that, in this instance, it’s actually good to be irrational. In this instance, then, you’ve made a rational decision, you had a reason to believe the thing that you did. Now, taking this example, and what I’ve formerly said, about you not being irrational, in mind, can you think of any given scenario in which you’ve ever made an irrational decision? Perhaps you can, even, and it was bad, but also, presumably, you thought it was a rational decision at the time. It was probably (here is maybe where it gets iffy) only in hindsight, that you thought your previous belief was irrational.
Taking this into account, and extrapolating off of that experience, we can intuit that they probably didn’t mean what you meant when you (not you, the other guy, but also you right now I suppose) said the word “irrational”, they don’t share your definition of it. Because, kind of, based on these examples I’ve given, there would never be a circumstance in which it would make sense, i.e., “be rational”, for someone to make an irrational decision. This is a straight paradox, if we take that definition to be what they meant.
Then, considering this, right, we can assume they probably meant something else, other than what you have assumed. I will not claim to know what they meant.
Blam, sea lion that, motherfucker. You probably can if you tried really hard, but blam. Sea lion it. (this could be a pretty good example of sea-lioning, too, I gave you some pretty low-stakes, specific stuff to contest, there, that isn’t really part of the main argument, i.e. it’s the definition of a sealion).
Nah, I don’t feel like it. But if I were to do so, I’d probably say something like “this is laughably absurd, come back when you know how to debate” so as to avoid letting you steer the conversation.
Perfect response!
they don’t shut up though, they just change topics
e.g. @clubbing4198/lemmy.worldJust call it out and redirect back to the topic. It’s like training a dog.
you can train a LLM like a dog…
you tried to provide an argument and then failed when i replied with evidence as to why you were wrong and then you just responded to as many comments as you could saying im spam after saying “fuck you”. you labeled me as MAGA when you have no evidence other than im critical of biden and establishment dems.
Pardon me, I couldn’t help but overhear. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing Biden has ever done to you personally?
You seem like the AT&T of people.
i clearly disproved your point but you just continue on… pretending like you “won”
and im calling you maga spam because of the shear volume of lie and disinformation that is anti-biden, and “biden is worse than trump”fuck off, maga spam
im not pro biden, anyways… im anti-trump
Removed by mod
i clearly disproved your point
the one about immigration. the one regarding this information: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/13/title-42-migration-biden-new-policy-tougher
But for more than a year, Biden kept, and defended in court, Trump’s most sweeping border restriction: the Title 42 emergency order that allowed agents to cite the Covid-19 pandemic to quickly expel migrants without hearing asylum claims.
And this:
cause you were saying that biden has done well for immigration. those articles read contrary to that narrative
fuck off, maga spam
Removed by mod
if you start the line with a # it is a LOT bigger. be sure to include a space after the # though
Show me one thing i have said that is pro tump? Biden is just as bad as trump not worse. Do not put words in my mouth
There’s a joke that goes
I am Firm; You are Obstinate; He is a Pig-headed Fool.
By analogy,
I’m challenging offensive assumptions; you’re asking stupid questions; he’s sealioning.
Don’t pretend like it’s impossible to tell the actual difference between those things. It’s not all subjective. Words have meaning and people are capable of perceiving the motivations of others accurately.
tell the actual difference between those things. It’s not all subjective.
Can you provide a source for that?
No, not this one.(Yes, I’m pulling your leg.)
Lmao
I agree, the comic does a terrible job of demonstrating that however.
You know I kind of find it funny that the internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just “people that I don’t like”. It doesn’t really matter whether or not the person is actually “sealioning” anymore, or whether or not the word ever had a definition in the first place, because it’s just something that you’re gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn’t like your line of argument, or the fact that you’ve disagreed with them, or whatever. Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there’s another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there’s another one.
Oops, you’re a troll, you’re a bot, you’re a sealion, you’re strawmanning my position, you’re arguing in bad faith. Signals get crossed over the written medium, anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they’re not. There’s better insurance, better strategies against that, then just kind of labeling it and then moving on.
I think the biggest problem is that labeling the behavior doesn’t really tell you what your response should be. If someone is arguing against you in bad faith, you sort of have the options of, arguing back against them in equal measure, equally bad faith, which I would say is the trap most people fall into. You also have the option of arguing against them as though you don’t recognize them as being in bad faith, while being as courteous and nice as possible, which can go some amount of the way to clarifying that you’re not arguing in bad faith if you’ve been mistaken. Or you can just not respond, which is probably a good idea. Don’t feed the troll, don’t reward them with attention.
But also, to some degree, someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn’t really matter. What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they’re arguing correctly. If they’re doing so incorrectly, then they’re not going to be giving you anything interesting to work off of, and then you should probably just ignore them. That’s my advice. It’s like, they’re just a more advanced form of spam, and the solution to spam is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
The internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just “people that I don’t like”
No, a lot of terms for people arguing in bad faith have originated on the internet because there’s a lot of different bad faith arguments on the internet.
Confusing sealioning and other bad faith arguing with “people that I don’t like” is a classic and common example of the bad faith trope called a strawman.
It doesn’t really matter whether or not the person is actually “sealioning”
It absolutely does. You can’t have a rational discussion with someone arguing in bad faith. Someone who’s wrong or seemingly wrong but arguing in good faith might learn something or cause you to learn something, whereas someone arguing in bad faith is only interested in “winning” and completely closed off to even the most valid counterpoints.
it’s just something that you’re gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn’t like your line of argument or the fact that you’ve disagreed with them, or whatever.
It really really isn’t. That you keep going on about this misconception implies that you’ve often been correctly accused of arguing in bad faith and are trying to fend that off by convincing others that there’s no such thing as bad faith, only subjective dislike. Which is objectively wrong.
Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there’s another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there’s another one.
The real irony is that you’re trying to terminate the thought that bad faith arguing exists via a bad faith use of a thought-terminating cliché.
anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they’re not
Again objectively false and saying a lot more about how YOU argue on the internet than internet discussion in general.
labeling the behavior doesn’t really tell you what your response should be
While that’s technically true, it’s much easier to know how to deal with something when you know WHAT you’re dealing with, whether you say it out loud or not.
someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn’t really matter.
That’s just ridiculously false. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they’re arguing correctly
…arguing in bad faith IS by definition a way of arguing incorrectly.
solution [to bad faith arguing] is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
Sure, but simple doesn’t always mean easy. Especially when you have poor impulse control and were brought up to consider it incredibly rude and disrespectful to not answer when someone’s trying to explain you something, whether they’re right or wrong.
See so my kneejerk response to this on seeing it, is, oh, someone’s going, literally line by line of my comment, and, line by line, refuting what I say. That’s what I would classically kind of think of as, oh, this is a bad faith argument, especially because you extrapolate from my post and say, oh, you must’ve been accused of arguing in bad faith constantly, and are trying to convince everyone that bad faith arguments are actually epic and cool! This is not the case, that’s not what I’m really arguing. Despite these somewhat clear signals, in my mind, I’m going to respond, because I’m a hypocrite, of course.
I’m not disputing the actual definitions of sealioning or strawmanning, or that these can be potentially useful terms, what I’m doing is I’m saying that people should put more thought into what it is other people are actually doing with their argument, and what it is that they want out of their engagement with other people, rather than just labeling someone else as something, and then going about their day.
That doesn’t really help anyone, it’s just a kind of self-satisfying thing to do. Anyone reading the comment has to trust that the person doing the labeling is doing it correctly, and to responsibly confirm that, they’re going to have to have read the preceding comment and made their own mind up about it. So it’s not helpful to just label something as “misinformation”, and then move on as though you’ve provided some sort of divinely ordained moral service to everyone passing by. I’ve encountered that sort of mentality before, that debates aren’t really done out of like, an intellectual curiosity, or to kind of, talk through your own viewpoints while listening to someone else and they’re input, they’re done for some third party audience. Which I think is, you know, a less helpful way of viewing debates, viewing arguments. Less helpful for a third party, but also less helpful for yourself. If you’re doing it correctly, it shouldn’t matter much whether or not your opposition is arguing with you in bad faith, because you, and everyone else, should still be able to get something out of it.
I’d also say, a bulk of my point was in the latter half of my comment, the part that you didn’t respond to line by line. My point is that, realistically, bad faith arguments can come from anywhere, even from people who insist and fully believe that they’re not arguing in bad faith, i.e. people who are actually arguing in good faith and just doing so really poorly because they’re dumb. This being the case, that the signals are kind of indistinguishable, and it also being the case that bad faith arguments are kind of, doomed to happen, my advice is that people should either ignore them completely, and not let them kind of, occupy as much free rent as they do, in their minds, or they should work to try and get something out of them despite their bad faith. That was the point I intended to make. Arguing in such a manner, is more beneficial to an observing third party, it can potentially solve the problem of separating signals between bad faith arguers, and poor arguers, and it can help you figure out what your real opinion is on something, and make you better at debate.
Edit: To clarify, what I’m arguing against in my post is people who just summarize someone’s argument as “oh, here’s a list of all the logical fallacies you’ve performed”, and then they haven’t done any of the work to say why that’s important, or how those fallacies affected something. I don’t think that’s a helpful function, to anyone, and it leads to a bunch of people who don’t know what any specific fallacy is, other than that it’s something that they can just kind of slap onto arguments they hate.
Strawman is a pretty common fallacy that I’ve noticed this happen to. I’d also like to comment that, you know, sure, am I creating a strawman by arguing against that type of behavior? I don’t fuckin know. I was under the impression that a strawman was when you were arguing against someone, and then you basically put words in their mouth and extrapolate positions in their argument that they never really took. When I posted that comment, I wasn’t arguing against any specific person, I was just commenting about a general thing I’ve experienced. I wasn’t putting words in anyone’s mouth, because I wasn’t responding to anyone.
We’re all on the internet, you can look up the actual definition for “strawman” like I just did.
To paraphrase: strawmanning an argument is not so concretely about “putting words in anyone’s mouth”.
It is the process of debating a newly-created stance/position/idea that is easily disproven and visibly flawed when this new position may or may not be related to anything in the pre-existing debate. You don’t have to be ‘responding to anyone’; in fact, it fits more if you are not arguing something that anyone in the debate has referenced before.
When someone incorrectly labels you as sealioning that’s called wondermarking. So you can smugly ignore the other person, they are just wondermarking.
After the first few sentences I just read ARPARPARPARPARPARPARPARP
anyone else?
Nah, that’s just you.
Welllllll,at least now I know. It was way too much to read tho
“cuntiness”
No thanks, I already ate
There’s always room for pussy!
You’re totally off target there. The problem is that we’re mentally unfit to deal with this much info on a daily basis, and we’re social competitors by nature. We default to scoring points on each other. This is what we are, and we’re only noticing it because now the whole world can hear the whole world, all the time.
Reasoned debate isn’t even done perfectly by those actively in forensics/debate clubs. It’s a learned skill that only shows its true value among other adepts. At the same time, knowing who was funnier or more creatively insulting is a universally admired lowest common denominator.
The utopian promise of the internet has turned to ash in the mouths of its greatest proponents as the glaring light of the collected world has laid bare the indelible stamp of our lowly origins. We need smaller spaces, not larger, to shine more softly among friends who are not so exhausted. That’s why I’m here instead of Reddit.
For the sake of form I’d like to have sourced a few of my claims, but time presses. I hope that my somewhat more gloomy views are not too bothersome.
That is a kind of cynical worldview, i will admit. I think with the amount of people responding to my post that kind of, haven’t really gotten what I’m trying to get across, I think I’ve failed with making my point, perhaps.
To put it better, I think it realistically shouldn’t matter. People looking to score points, people looking for easy targets for bad faith pesterings and attacks. The mentality and approach I’ve taken, which I would espouse as advice to others, is that, despite the kind of, stupidity of the internet, if you are going to respond, you should attempt to get something out of it. Even just to be conscious of what you’re getting out of it, would be a step up, too many people take easy owns because they want to reaffirm their own ego, and aren’t even conscious that’s what they’re looking to do. It would even be better, I would think, if people were conscious of that, even if they still did it in the end. I mean that’s probably what we’re all doing to some extent.
In any case, I think, actually trying to present an external argument, right, it’s harder, it’s not as rewarding, most people aren’t going to do it. But I think passersby will still appreciate it when it’s done, I think it’s objectively more useful, than an easier to parse, easy own, and I think potentially, if done correctly, it can more legitimately distinguish between bad faith arguers and people who are just arguing poorly, which can hopefully make people less cynical and more satisfied with their existence online. It’s a sisyphean task, sure, but sisyphus is also jacked, and we all needed the exercise anyways.
This is not really to counteract any of what you’re saying, though, I think we’re kind of, making points on two different levels. You’re arguing a more kind of, societal reality point, which I would totally agree with, I’m arguing an individual goal kind of point, like an actionable advice kind of thing. Hopefully, anyways.
All received as intended, I think. I must have woken up on a poetic side of the bed this morning, I’m glad I didn’t come off too pompous for a serious reply. I don’t sense that we disagree in any way worth quibbling over.
Doing things with intentionality these days is something we get too rarely even from artists, and that’s their entire job. The unexamined life will always have its proponents, eh?
That’s a lot of words to say the internet is full of useless bad faith arguments that are meaningless. (This is said in jest. I completely agree with your position)
I would argue with you but I need a snappy term to call out someone who makes a long post so that I can win this argument.
Friend, are you familiar per chance with ancient Greece? Humans have been labeling argumentative behavior since the dawn of language. All those things have Greek or Latin terms. Debate has been considered an art form and seriously studied for millennia. There’s no right way of answering a bad faith argument because it is contextual and made more difficult by the toneless nature of the written word. But in some contexts, even on the internet, you don’t have the option of ignoring it. Sometimes it is your job or your responsibility to answer to it, then you have to be creative and artful, depending on the circumstances and what your goal is.
Typical. Check out this echidna you guys.
yup, pretty much
My hot take is that arguing on the internet is just never worth it. As soon as a comment turns into an argument I stop responding.
That’s not a very hot take.
I think for many it’s knowing when they should block them and not waste their time. having the term and behaviour pointed out helps with that.
More about internet terms and definitions to help catch it when it happens: https://www.dictionary.com/e/online-harassment-disinformation-terms/
And while there are discussions where someone might use these terms to dismiss someone else, Best to move on from that as well.
deleted by creator
Found the sea lion.
“I think eggplant tastes horrible”
“Got a source to back that up?”
Yep, sounds about like some motherfuckers around here.
Yep, sounds about like some motherfuckers around here.
Got a source to back that up?
Sure, Right here.
deleted by creator
Yup, deleting those losers who literally follow you for days arguing over the stupidest shit ever is very liberating. There’s an air born squid I’ve blocked that’s made this place far more tolerable LoL.
I think by this point everyone on the Fediverse has argued with them and felt the same exasperation.
deleted by creator
I wonder if Malki finds the coining of this term to be his greatest accomplishment. I know I would.
I asked for Malki’s authorization to put a translated version in my Spanish-language website and he was very quick to allow it. He seems to be a nice guy.
I love that he has made his site accessible and even friendly to people who view it in different ways. His RSS feed is pristine, for example.
That man has the patience of an angel.
Can you get her out of my car please?
I remember this from several years ago. Not one Youtube commenter took her side
[Warning: contains real sea lions doing funny stuff.]
Is is weird that when I see a comic, there’s an inverse relationship between the depth and detail of the drawing and my likelihood of reading the strip?
Entirely irrational, I know.
Not irrational. The “detail” in this style of comic is visual clutter that makes it actually significantly harder to see what’s in the panel right away
Does anyone else feel this (and, subsequently, the term itself) is mildly racist? Or at least defensive of racist/bigoted statements? Like, if someone said “I could do without [insert race here],” is it unreasonable to hold them accountable? I get this is intended to be about people not letting go of minor nitpicks, but the setup is pretty poor, imo.
Would you mind providing some evidence to back up your claims?
#I am trying to eat breakfast
It depends on the context as always.
Sealioning as genuine trolling is shitty and done in bad faith.
But it is completely fair to call out people and ask them for evidence when they make broad statements that are easily verifiable like “black people are more violent than white people” or “Republicans are just as unfriendly towards poor people as Democrats” Etc.
But yeah, here without the context it’s easy to get confused what Sealioning actually is.
Sealioning as genuine trolling is shitty and done in bad faith.
It’s literally part of the definition that it’s in bad faith. Otherwise it isn’t sealioning.
Sure, but in this comment the sealion is initially acting in good faith towards by what any standard of the world presented in the comic would be a racist.
Are you sure about that? The first actual request of the sealion is ridiculously overbroad and would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to comply with.
At which point the sealion would doubtlessly respond by either nitpicking one example amongst many or moving the goalposts.
Doesn’t seem to me that it was acting in good faith at any point.
Idk bro, you could replace the sealion with that guy who un-racisted all those Klan members and I bet the initial interaction was pretty similar. It gets back on track when the sealion follows him home and all, but I think it would have been a stronger comic if they were talking about other things when the sealion hounds him about a different topic.
Then people who don’t know what sealioning is look up what the fuck it’s about and it doesn’t look the sealion is just practicing active anti-racism.
I’d actually argue the contrary: that it’s initially questionable whether or not the sealion is acting in bad faith rather than immediately obvious mirrors real life and as such better illustrates how a sealion differs from an immediately obvious troll.
It’s clear from the context of the comic that it’s the behavior of such sea mammals that she dislikes rather than anything intrinsic that they don’t choose themselves and can’t change.
The sealion immediately latching onto a misunderstanding of intent and refusing to let go of it is in fact another way in which the comic effectively illustrates sealioning.
…this is beginning to feel uncomfortably meta…
Yeah, someone here isn’t admitting there’s a weird racial element to “I just don’t like the way all of those types act…” when all you need to say is “yeah it’s a little weird” and everyone can move on with things like saying “Yeah, fuck sealions.”
It’s also not a great look to pretend a direct, ongoing discussion in a specific post is the same as someone following you around social media, pretending ignorance of the topic, and endlessly requesting clarification.
Yeah, this isn’t just someone wanting a reasonable conversation and not getting it. This is the guy on reddit who goes on your profile and follows you around to other subs demanding your reply to a conversation you disengaged with weeks ago.
Racist against whom exactly?
In the comic replace the word “Sea lion” with any minority and the response is fully appropriate (Other than being in their house).
Why would you do that?
I hate eggs
um actually if you replace eggs with minorities you can see how you’re being pretty racist here
If the comic then had an egg asking “why would you say that?” you’d have a point.
The comic has a sea lion fully capable of speech, and a person saying “I do not like this clearly sentient creature, because they bother me when I say I don’t like them as a whole.”
seems an extremely oversensitive and overly literal take to me. it’s just a comedic way to represent a certain type of irritating persona, for the same meaning the character could as well say she dislikes annoying people and be subsequently annoyed by one across the rest of the panels, but that would be less of a comic
My point is you could change “Sea lion” to any minority, change the sea lion itself to that minority, and the comic does not lose all meaning. It can be interpreted as someone saying “I do not like (group)” and then being harassed by a member of that group while they repeatedly say nothing but “go away”. A racist could read this and think “Damn straight, I should be allowed to say I don’t like (race) without being harassed for it!”
OK i think i understand you better, but still it seems a long stretch to me. a racist could read this and etc but so what? if he reads fables and decides that the tortoise represents this minority and the hare is that one his outlandish take does not indicate a problem in the original intention
Now replace “sea lion” with “pedophile” or “murderer” and the comic remains the same still!
But it’s not about minorities and not about characteristics that people were born with and can’t change (if they wanted to) about themselves.
I mean it could very easily be (another internet favourite term) a dogwhistle. It’s not actually about sea lions…
I don’t think that’s the case here but it’s easy to see their point
In the universe presented in the comic: Sea lions are born sea lions, can’t change that, and are sentient to the point of having the capacity for language.
I get your previous point about the language, but now you’re just actively trying to spin this into something it isn’t.
Like, should we really feel bad for cartoon sealions?
My point isn’t we should feel bad for cartoon sea lions, it’s that it’s not much of a reach for someone to read this and think they are talking about minorities. “Damn right! I should be able to say I don’t like (race) without being hassled for it!”
It’s a broad defense of prejudice, but naturally people are going to choose the prejudices they like as the legitimate ones.
Online Discussions be like:
Hee hee. I feel like the one being sealioned most of the time. It doesn’t matter what I say, “I should like to have a reasonable debate about what you said. What proof do you have that this has ever happened, and if you don’t say something I like I’ll be back again to hound you about it until you validate me in a way that I sorely need.”
Some people view every exchange on the internet as some sort of formal academic discourse, it’s pretty weird. Can you imagine someone acting like that in person? You’d clearly tell them to fuck off, it’s totally obnoxious.
Exactly. And some people view every post as some kind of assault on their own views or values. It makes me reluctant to post anything that may be quite radical or a unique take on something, because no matter my intentions, someone takes umbridge at it (and they really shouldn’t, we need the wood).
Anyway - I don’t mean to step on anyone’s sacred cow when I post things, I’m just trying to bring a new slant or point of view most of the time. I’m fine with someone saying “I disagree, and here’s why.” I’m not fine with people saying, “I disagree because you’re a stupid idiot.”
