Straight Dope Message Board

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

BTW, note that my use of “gaslighting” is entirely consistent with the usage in the source material, a nearly century-old play. Unlike your use of “sealioning”, despite the much more recent provenance of the sea lion comic.

Gaslighting involves trying to convince someone that something which is not true is in fact true. It's literally the opposite of what I'm doing, which is trying to correct your dogged, wilful state of being factually wrong.

You've been given numerous cites and links to formal definitions of the word besides and beyond the comic itself. You've been given examples of actual sealioning in the world. We've all told you that's what we meant by the word when we use it. And yet you keep insisting that no, no, you have the one real understanding of it and it's the entire rest of the world that's mistaken. That's not how language works. 251

[BigT]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Gaslighting is a form of abuse that attempts to convince someone that they are delusional and cannot trust their own senses and memory. It comes from a play called Gaslight where a husband does exactly this to his wife.

No one is doing anything remotely like gaslighting here. You appear to be doing something that the anti-liberals do: they'll steal words they've heard liberals and progressives use and completely misuse them. It's like you think those words are magic talismans that help liberals win arguments, rather than words with actual meaning. 252

[The Librarian]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Gaslighting involves trying to convince someone that something which is not true is in fact true. It's literally the opposite of what I'm doing, which is trying to correct your dogged, wilful state of being factually wrong.



You've been given numerous cites and links to formal definitions of the word besides and beyond the comic itself. You've been given examples of actual sealioning in the world. We've all told you that's what we meant by the word when we use it. And yet you keep insisting that no, no, you have the one real understanding of it and it's the entire rest of the world that's mistaken. That's not how language works.

How the fuck are you not seeing what he’s doing? It is right there in the title of the thread. 253

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by BigT

It's like you think those words are magic talismans that help liberals win arguments, rather than words with actual meaning.

Again: the irony here is so thick it would require a jungle machete to hack through. 254

[Babale]

Here's a great example. In a thread about how the South had managed to rewrite the Civil War with the Lost Cause narrative, Rio Rico asks, "why do we let the losers write history", clearly meaning, "why did we let the losers of the Civil War set the tone for how we view the North and South?". One mighty walrus pops into the thread with this gem:

Originally Posted by octopus

Great Britain wrote history after losing the war another group of slave owning traitors started. Who was going to stop them?

255

[SlackerInc]

So now any snarky quip from someone whose politics you disagree with is a “great example”? 256

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

k9bfriender "You do not need to accept my definition of treason for your use, but you should accept that I am using it in that way."

What is the substantive difference?

No, you claimed that I quoted Humpty Dumpty, not that I said something that you found to be similar. Or do you not think that words have meaning?

Also, please justify your claim that there is no substantive difference between making up definitions of words, and using words as they are defined in the dictionary. 257

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Babale

Here's a great example. In a thread about how the South had managed to rewrite the Civil War with the Lost Cause narrative, Rio Rico asks, "why do we let the losers write history", clearly meaning, "why did we let the losers of the Civil War set the tone for how we view the North and South?". One mighty walrus pops into the thread with this gem:

I notice you didn’t quote Riemann who also thought the prohibition on history writing was ridiculous. Try not to be a poor reading comprehension, low IQ, dishonest doofus, 258

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Gaslighting involves trying to convince someone that something which is not true is in fact true. It's literally the opposite of what I'm doing, which is trying to correct your dogged, wilful state of being factually wrong.

You've been given numerous cites and links to formal definitions of the word besides and beyond the comic itself. You've been given examples of actual sealioning in the world. We've all told you that's what we meant by the word when we use it. And yet you keep insisting that no, no, you have the one real understanding of it and it's the entire rest of the world that's mistaken. That's not how language works.

That's why assholes like him get the IGNORE. 259

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by The Librarian

How the fuck are you not seeing what he’s doing? It is right there in the title of the thread.

Bingo! 260

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Why won't you wear red? You claim that you have nothing against red, but your shirts and ties are all blue, those aren't the actions of someone who doesn't have anything against red. How can you say that you have nothing against red, when you are obviously biased toward blue?

I would wear red. I have worn red. I admit bias towards the color blue. So?

Using treason to mean "betrayal" is entirely valid. It is in the dictionary and everything. That I am not using treason in the way that you want it to be defined is your problem, not mine

Then why not just use "betrayal" instead of "treason"? Does using the word "treason" enhance your argument in any way? Or does it simply inject an emotional facet into your argument?

What you are looking for here is not someone to explain their opinion, it is to justify their opinion to your satisfaction

Not really. I don't expect people to justify their opinion to my satisfaction. Just enough so I can understand where they are getting their opinion. I rarely, if ever, denigrate someone for their opinion, unless it is just utterly ridiculous like "Don't talk to women at work so you don't face a harassment charge" or similar.

Your guess is not a cite

Sorry, it's my opinion, and I don't have to provide cites. You aren't sealioning here are you?

Right, which is why, when instead of explaining why you agree or disagree why we should betray the Kurds, you instead focus on a single word that was not used in a way that you approve of, you are not contributing to a productive conversation

Just use "betray" then and it will avoid all the problems associated with the word "treason".

Concentration camp is a very accurate term for holding a bunch of people in high density living arrangements. That it has some baggage that it picked up because Nazis used concentration camps is not the fault of someone who accurately describes something happening. Once again, this is an example of objecting to a word or term, not because it is wrong or inaccurate, but only because you don't like it. This serves only as a distraction from the discussion as to whether or not the detentions are justified and the living conditions are humane

It has nothing to do with me "liking it". There is literally no structure that can be built to hold asylum seekers that doesn't meet your definition of concentration camp.

I still don't understand why people hold so dearly to certain words that others reject.

"What we did to the Kurds is treason!"

"Why do you say that? What is treasonous about it?"

"OK. What we did to the Kurds is a great betrayal!"

"Yeah. I agree"

Seems pretty simple to me. 261

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Riemann

When you have to explain what your cartoon was supposed to mean, it's a poor cartoon.

I'm not defending the artistic/literary quality of the cartoon. I'm just pointing out that the cartoon's author has made it unambiguously clear that he intended the other characters' disparagement of the sealion as a metaphor for criticizing a certain type of asshole behavior. Not for any kind of gratuitous abuse or unjustified prejudice against anybody's "immutable characteristics".

So yes, using the common term "sealioning" to mean a particular form of asshole behavior is the correct interpretation of the cartoon, as opposed to SlackerInc's willfully ignorant version of it. 262

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I'm not defending the artistic/literary quality of the cartoon. I'm just pointing out that the cartoon's author has made it unambiguously clear that he intended the other characters' disparagement of the sealion as a metaphor for criticizing a certain type of asshole behavior. Not for any kind of gratuitous abuse or unjustified prejudice against anybody's "immutable characteristics".

Yeah, and Chris Rock used to do that bit about how some types of behavior makes you an N-word. Doesn't change the fact that it actually does refer to immutable characteristics as defined by society. 263

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

Yeah, and Chris Rock used to do that bit about how some types of behavior makes you an N-word. Doesn't change the fact that it actually does refer to immutable characteristics as defined by society.

Difference being, Chris Rock didn't coin the word nigger, so his opinion on whether it's about behaviour is just his opinion.

Whereas Malki very much did make the comic in question, so what he says about what it refers to is the Word of God.

He wasn't the one who verbed it, though, so its current use is not bound by the cartoon. Informed by, but not bound by. Something some people fail to grasp. 264

[Ravenman]

The fact that we are arguing about language prescriptivism when it comes to an Internet term is driving me LITERALLY insane. 265

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The fact that we are arguing about language prescriptivism when it comes to an Internet term is driving me LITERALLY insane.

I see what you did there. Your mother and I are disappointed. We're not angry, just profoundly disappointed. 266

[Babale]

Originally Posted by octopus

I notice you didn’t quote Riemann who also thought the prohibition on history writing was ridiculous. Try not to be a poor reading comprehension, low IQ, dishonest doofus,

Nobody said anything about a prohibition on history writing, you ignorant cretin. The phrase "letting losers write history" doesn't refer to the losing side being forbidden from ever writing again. It's a figurative (sorry, is that too many syllables? Try "symbolic") turn of phrase that has to do with who gets to set the zeitgeist -- ie who decides what our cultural perception is.

Despite the fact that you refer to Washington as a slaveholding traitor, that's not how he's seen by our culture. People like Lee on the other hand are lionized to this day. Why is the winner Washington lionized, the loser King George mocked, and yet the loser Lee is considered a model general and Grant a failure?

And here, in a thread about sea lioning, I responded to the biggest pinniped of all. Your username should he Walrus, not Octopus. So joke's on me -- you'll respond with a snide one liner, or just ignore this post completely. I've been burned a dozen times before; why do I keep trying? 267

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Again: the irony here is so thick it would require a jungle machete to hack through.

Right, but not in the way you mean it. 268

[Sunny Daze]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Right, but not in the way you mean it.

He's very, very good at this. Someone should just bung him into the cartoon instead of the sealion. Has he tried to explain why he's actually a walrus yet? That's always good. 269

[Czarcasm]

I can't wait for "The term is invalid because the drawing looks more like a large seal than a sea lion!" 270

[RioRico]

Originally Posted by Babale

Nobody said anything about a prohibition on history writing, you ignorant cretin. The phrase "letting losers write history" doesn't refer to the losing side being forbidden from ever writing again. It's a figurative (sorry, is that too many syllables? Try "symbolic") turn of phrase that has to do with who gets to set the zeitgeist -- ie who decides what our cultural perception is.

Thank you for catching my drift. Losers don't usually get to brainwash the winners with their stories... except for slavery and America. Slavers slaughtered in the Alamo are lionized and the anti-slavery Mexicans denigrated. Lionized? Slavery supporters should be sealionized. Please cite authorities showing slavery is good for the slaves. Define "happy slaves". If slavery is good, you wouldn't mind being enslaved, right? 271

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Just use "betray" then and it will avoid all the problems associated with the word "treason".



It has nothing to do with me "liking it". There is literally no structure that can be built to hold asylum seekers that doesn't meet your definition of concentration camp.

I still don't understand why people hold so dearly to certain words that others reject.

"What we did to the Kurds is treason!"

"Why do you say that? What is treasonous about it?"

"OK. What we did to the Kurds is a great betrayal!"

"Yeah. I agree"

Seems pretty simple to me.

If someone is sincerely interested in discussion, they don't use the JAQing off* structure, they just talk:

"What we did to the Kurds is treason!"

"I'm uncomfortable with the term "treason" there; it has a pretty specific legal definition and I don't see it. But it was certainly betrayal!"

See, JAQing off isn't about getting to truth; it's about scoring points, it's about trying to be all alpha by putting your self in the law-professor role, it's about making the other person admit they were wrong. I think a lot of people do it thoughtlessly, because it's common on the internet, so that's what they know. But generally speaking, when the JAQing starts, you know the person you are talking to will never be satisfied; they will read everything you write looking for "infiltration points" where they can raise an eyebrow and zing you. They imagine a crowd of lurkers clapping. They don't actually care about the discussion.

*I think "JAQing off" is a much better term than "sealioning". It perfectly captures the self-indulgent nature of the behavior. 272

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Whereas Malki very much did make the comic in question, so what he says about what it refers to is the Word of God.

God's dead, baby. God's dead.

Yes, I get that sealioning has a meaning now and it's derived from the cartoon. However, I can't let a negation of Death Of The Author slip by. The meaning the word has is due to common usage, not Malki telling us what his cartoon means. Malki gets to have an opinion on that, but it isn't the final one, any more than Homer gets to have the last word on why Odysseus was like that. 273

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

See, JAQing off isn't about getting to truth; it's about scoring points, it's about trying to be all alpha by putting your self in the law-professor role, it's about making the other person admit they were wrong. I think a lot of people do it thoughtlessly, because it's common on the internet, so that's what they know. But generally speaking, when the JAQing starts, you know the person you are talking to will never be satisfied; they will read everything you write looking for "infiltration points" where they can raise an eyebrow and zing you. They imagine a crowd of lurkers clapping. They don't actually care about the discussion.

The way I've always heard JAQing Off used goes more like this:

"Why did all the Jews pull their money out of the Twin Towers before 9/11? Why didn't anyone shoot down the passenger planes before they could hit the buildings? Why did Bush stay with the kids instead of going out there and doing something? Why didn't Bush act more shocked? Why wasn't there a plane-shaped hole in the Pentagon? Why did we only get pieces instead of whole remains?"

In short, it's asking questions in order to inject premises into a debate without having to provide any evidence for those premises. If I ask "Why were you drunk last night?" and you immediately say you haven't ever been drunk, you look evasive and I can call you on evading the question, even though I never provided any evidence of your drunkenness; the debate is now over whether you dodge questions about your drinking, with the drinking accepted as an implicit premise you can no longer challenge.

Conspiracy theorists love JAQing Off because it allows them to deploy talking points and "debate" in a way they think ensures victory. After all, if nobody gives them the answers they want, they're evading, and therefore dishonest, and if your opponent is dishonest that means you win and are right about everything, and they're completely wrong. (Note: No it fucking doesn't.) 274

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Derleth

God's dead, baby. God's dead.

Yes, I get that sealioning has a meaning now and it's derived from the cartoon. However, I can't let a negation of Death Of The Author slip by. The meaning the word has is due to common usage, not Malki telling us what his cartoon means. Malki gets to have an opinion on that, but it isn't the final one, any more than Homer gets to have the last word on why Odysseus was like that.

Tru dat.
SlackerInc's still wrong though. And you know that if you start talking that Death Of The Author and descriptivist shit he's going to go down that "then anything means anything and nothing makes any sense so I'm correct and also win !" road. Thanks, Obama. 275

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

If someone is sincerely interested in discussion, they don't use the JAQing off* structure, they just talk:

"What we did to the Kurds is treason!"

"I'm uncomfortable with the term "treason" there; it has a pretty specific legal definition and I don't see it. But it was certainly betrayal!"

See, JAQing off isn't about getting to truth; it's about scoring points, it's about trying to be all alpha by putting your self in the law-professor role, it's about making the other person admit they were wrong. I think a lot of people do it thoughtlessly, because it's common on the internet, so that's what they know. But generally speaking, when the JAQing starts, you know the person you are talking to will never be satisfied; they will read everything you write looking for "infiltration points" where they can raise an eyebrow and zing you. They imagine a crowd of lurkers clapping. They don't actually care about the discussion.

*I think "JAQing off" is a much better term than "sealioning". It perfectly captures the self-indulgent nature of the behavior.

Certain words ought to be used precisely. If the so-called nitpicking was on a word like is or what then yes you have a point. But questioning the appropriateness of using a word like treason is perfectly fine. 276

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by octopus

Certain words ought to be used precisely. If the so-called nitpicking was on a word like is or what then yes you have a point. But questioning the appropriateness of using a word like treason is perfectly fine.

Are you agreeing with Manda Jo? Because she seems to imply that questioning is fine, and she does it in her example, but the poster should also add some value. So, "I'm uncomfortable with the word treason...but it was certainly betrayal" is a useful post. However, "Treason? What do you mean? Who committed treason?" is not. Especially when the questioner has a specific legalistic meaning in mind (you need an enemy in order to give aid and comfort) and doesn't even set down the definition they're using.

So, don't you think Manda Jo allows for questioning the definition of, say, treason in her example? And, by adding extra useful commentary (the definition and the "betrayal") part, that hypothetical poster avoids becoming a sea lion. 277

[octopus]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

Are you agreeing with Manda Jo? Because she seems to imply that questioning is fine, and she does it in her example, but the poster should also add some value. So, "I'm uncomfortable with the word treason...but it was certainly betrayal" is a useful post. However, "Treason? What do you mean? Who committed treason?" is not. Especially when the questioner has a specific legalistic meaning in mind (you need an enemy in order to give aid and comfort) and doesn't even set down the definition they're using.

So, don't you think Manda Jo allows for questioning the definition of, say, treason in her example? And, by adding extra useful commentary (the definition and the "betrayal") part, that hypothetical poster avoids becoming a sea lion.

I think you are right. I misinterpreted her post. 278

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by octopus

I think you are right. I misinterpreted her post.

This right here? Warms my heart. 279

[Babale]

Originally Posted by RitterSport

This right here? Warms my heart.

I'd be a lot more impressed if he didn't ignore my earlier post addressing him. Called it! 280

[Babale]

Originally Posted by RioRico

Thank you for catching my drift. Losers don't usually get to brainwash the winners with their stories... except for slavery and America. Slavers slaughtered in the Alamo are lionized and the anti-slavery Mexicans denigrated. Lionized? Slavery supporters should be sealionized. Please cite authorities showing slavery is good for the slaves. Define "happy slaves". If slavery is good, you wouldn't mind being enslaved, right?

I'd say "you're welcome" but honestly your point is not a complicated one, which is why I have such a hard time believing that people who just don't "get it" (not people who disagree, people who are just clueless) are acting in good faith. 281

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by octopus

I think you are right. I misinterpreted her post.

But how do you feel about my underlying point? The person who drops a question without context or willingness to contribute their own idea derails the discussion; they turn it into a trial of the other person's debating skills. IME, the person who says "How does this meet the federal definition of treason?" isn't interested in the answer. If I back off and say 'ok, not techically treason, but betrayal", they will chalk that up as a "point", not respond in any way, and move on to the next potential place they can score a point. It's toxic to discussion, and entertaining that model shortly derails the whole thing. 282

[k9bfriender]

Originally Posted by manson1972

I would wear red. I have worn red. I admit bias towards the color blue. So?

Oh, now you change your tune, that you are called out on your bias.

Then why not just use "betrayal" instead of "treason"? Does using the word "treason" enhance your argument in any way? Or does it simply inject an emotional facet into your argument?

Does your semantic nitpicking about word choice enhance your argument in any way? Or is it simply to win points on the internet?

If you display far more concern about word choice than about the post that those words appear in, then you are not here for the same reasons that I am.

Not really. I don't expect people to justify their opinion to my satisfaction. Just enough so I can understand where they are getting their opinion. I rarely, if ever, denigrate someone for their opinion, unless it is just utterly ridiculous like "Don't talk to women at work so you don't face a harassment charge" or similar.

So, you do not denigrate someone for their opinion, unless you judge that their opinion is ridiculous?

Sorry, it's my opinion, and I don't have to provide cites. You aren't sealioning here are you?

It is only your opinion that "a poster would say "Of course it's treason you Trump lover!" because now it seems like we are moving more toward a "Just agree with me or else I will call you a sealioning troll!" type of subject.", not a guess?

Just use "betray" then and it will avoid all the problems associated with the word "treason".

Just get over the fact that someone used a word in a way that you don't like, and that also avoids all the problems with the word "treason".

It has nothing to do with me "liking it". There is literally no structure that can be built to hold asylum seekers that doesn't meet your definition of concentration camp.

And your point is? Complaining about us using accurate terms to describe what is going on is only a distraction from what is going on. If you "win" the argument by exhausting the patience of your debate opponents, and they finally say, "Fine, I'll not call it a concentration camp anymore," what have you won?

I still don't understand why people hold so dearly to certain words that others reject.

I don't understand why people do dearly reject words that others use.

"What we did to the Kurds is treason!"

"Why do you say that? What is treasonous about it?"

"OK. What we did to the Kurds is a great betrayal!"

"Yeah. I agree"

Seems pretty simple to me.

Yeah, except that you get hung up on people using words in a way that you disapprove of, and refuse to allow the conversation to go on until they have justified it to your satisfaction.

Do you deny that one of the dictionary definitions of treason is betrayal? If so, take your fight up with webster, not with the poster. If not, then fucking let it go, as they did not use the word incorrectly, just not the way that you wanted them to use it. 283

[Bryan Ekers]

Regarding the original Wondermark cartoon, I've always found the last line to be the most significant. The sea lion has been told to go away and at the end the sea lion says: "Very well. We shall resume in an hour." I take this to clearly mean the sea lion has no real interest in a discussion and doesn't care in the least if the other person wants to continue it or not, it's a petty power move. 284

[octopus]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

But how do you feel about my underlying point? The person who drops a question without context or willingness to contribute their own idea derails the discussion; they turn it into a trial of the other person's debating skills. IME, the person who says "How does this meet the federal definition of treason?" isn't interested in the answer. If I back off and say 'ok, not techically treason, but betrayal", they will chalk that up as a "point", not respond in any way, and move on to the next potential place they can score a point. It's toxic to discussion, and entertaining that model shortly derails the whole thing.

I don’t see it as generally problematic. In threads in forums like elections or great debates I sort of expect a certain percentage of clarifying posts. There is actually more annoying forms of nitpicking and pedantic behavior than the occasional asking of clarification of a very loaded term.

But if you do feel that it’s problematic you have zero obligation to respond. If you find a poster obnoxious, dishonest, insulting, or think he/she smells funny you have no obligation to respond. There is behavior I think distracts from threads such as constantly reminding the world how no thread is worthwhile as long as the orange menace is terrorizing the multiverse. Apparently it’s fine because it’s far more prevalent than so-called sealioning.

I think the problem is some people get annoyed when the conversation is not going the direction they’d like because it’s focused on details but that’s sort of the nature of conversation in general is it not? If you are conversing in a relatively public place you just need strategies to deal with a certain bit of noise. 285

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Regarding the original Wondermark cartoon, I've always found the last line to be the most significant. The sea lion has been told to go away and at the end the sea lion says: "Very well. We shall resume in an hour." I take this to clearly mean the sea lion has no real interest in a discussion and doesn't care in the least if the other person wants to continue it or not, it's a petty power move.

Why isn't it just that he is dogged yet polite? He's going to back off long enough to let her eat breakfast, but he's not going to drop the matter.

Every attempt to cite supposed "great examples" of sealioning misses or purposely evades the fact that in the cartoon the sea lion is understandably miffed by a personal shot against him and his kind. It's not just some abstract issue that he's JAQing about. If that's not the emphasis intended by the author, he should have written a different comic strip. If a polite but persistent defense of oneself is not what users of the term "sealioning" have in mind, they should choose a different term. For example, the one I just used earlier in this paragraph: "JAQing". Or Manda Jo's version, "JAQing off".

Originally Posted by Derleth

God's dead, baby. God's dead.

Yes, I get that sealioning has a meaning now and it's derived from the cartoon. However, I can't let a negation of Death Of The Author slip by. The meaning the word has is due to common usage, not Malki telling us what his cartoon means. Malki gets to have an opinion on that, but it isn't the final one, any more than Homer gets to have the last word on why Odysseus was like that.

This. 286

[Riemann]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

*I think "JAQing off" is a much better term than "sealioning". It perfectly captures the self-indulgent nature of the behavior.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Derleth

The way I've always heard JAQing Off used goes more like this:

"Why did all the Jews pull their money out of the Twin Towers before 9/11? Why didn't anyone shoot down the passenger planes before they could hit the buildings? Why did Bush stay with the kids instead of going out there and doing something? Why didn't Bush act more shocked? Why wasn't there a plane-shaped hole in the Pentagon? Why did we only get pieces instead of whole remains?"

See now, I think that's more of a Gish Gallop than JAQing off

Sealioning is obviously a tricky one, and sometimes language just does odd things. Referring back to what the sealion cartoon depicts can't just be dismissed as the etymological fallacy, because it's all so recent. When we can look at threads just a few years ago that talk about people observing the verbing of sealion from the cartoon in real time, it's quite surprising that consensus meaning doesn't actually appear to correlate that well with what we see in the cartoon, even after the cartoonist tries to explain it. I think Banquet Bear's observation that he thinks everyone who looked at the cartoon at the time was interpreting it strongly in the light of goobergate is important. With that context apparently they inferred things about what the sealion represented that aren't objectively present in the cartoon. 287

[SlackerInc]

I take it "goobergate" is a snarky reference to gamergate. Has that become a widespread thing or just something BB and a few others here say? 288

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

I take it "goobergate" is a snarky reference to gamergate. Has that become a widespread thing or just something BB and a few others here say?

...I use goobergate instead of the other word because sometimes the mere mention of the word will bring an onslaught of gaters to defend "ethics in games journalism'. I also mask Z$e Quinn's name and anything else that might draw their attention. Admittedly it isn't much of a problem on a well-moderated board like this. But best not to tempt fate. 289

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Why isn't it just that he is dogged yet polite? He's going to back off long enough to let her eat breakfast, but he's not going to drop the matter.

Why, you're entirely right and he's clearly the most astonishingly generous sea lion in history and well deserving of a Nobel Prize.

Or he's a jerk who trying to exploit a small amount of conversational leverage in bad faith. She should get her metaphorical harpoon ready. 290

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

I also mask Z$e Quinn's name and anything else that might draw their attention.

I was getting curious about that, truth be told. 291

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Manda JO

If someone is sincerely interested in discussion, they don't use the JAQing off* structure, they just talk:

"What we did to the Kurds is treason!"

"I'm uncomfortable with the term "treason" there; it has a pretty specific legal definition and I don't see it. But it was certainly betrayal!"

This is a great post. I agree. I'll work to do this more in the future. 292

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by k9bfriender

Oh, now you change your tune, that you are called out on your bias

Not a question, I don't have to answer.

Does your semantic nitpicking about word choice enhance your argument in any way? Or is it simply to win points on the internet?

I have no argument. I simply want to know what you mean. I don't care about "winning points on the Internet" since that is meaningless and affects me as much as a sports team winning a game.

So, you do not denigrate someone for their opinion, unless you judge that their opinion is ridiculous?

I try not to denigrate someone's opinion if I ask for it. If they give unasked for opinions that I consider moronic, then I do judge that. Seems bad form to ask for an opinion and then make fun of it. I try not to do that.

And your point is? Complaining about us using accurate terms to describe what is going on is only a distraction from what is going on. If you "win" the argument by exhausting the patience of your debate opponents, and they finally say, "Fine, I'll not call it a concentration camp anymore," what have you won?

I'm not interested in "winning an argument" I'm interested in what people on this board post, and why they post it.

Do you deny that one of the dictionary definitions of treason is betrayal? If so, take your fight up with webster, not with the poster. If not, then fucking let it go, as they did not use the word incorrectly, just not the way that you wanted them to use it.

No, I don't deny it. I feel that President Obama was an egregious President. Do you agree or disagree? 293

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by manson1972

No, I don't deny it. I feel that President Obama was an egregious President. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree or disagree that Obama was an egregious president, or agree or disagree that you feel he was? 294

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Agree or disagree that Obama was an egregious president, or agree or disagree that you feel he was?

Fair point. Do you think Obama was an egregious President? 295

[Riemann]

Can a person be described as egregious? That's not a familiar usage to me. I tend to think it's used to describe actions, or maybe I'd say he's an "egregiously bad" president. This random page of sentence examples I found supports that:

https://sentencehouse.com/egregious/

But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

(Um, this is honestly a real question, by the way, not a sealion or a JAQ!) 296

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Riemann

Can a person be described as egregious? That's not a familiar usage to me. I tend to think it's used to describe actions. This random page of sentence examples I found supports that:

https://sentencehouse.com/egregious/

But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

(Um, this is honestly a real question, by the way, not a sealion or a JAQ!)

Sorry, asking what I mean by "egregious" is sealioning.

You should say "I'm uncomfortable with the term "egregious" there; it has a pretty specific definition and I don't see it" 297

[Riemann]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Sorry, asking what I mean by "egregious" is sealioning.

You should say "I'm uncomfortable with the term "egregious" there; it has a pretty specific definition and I don't see it"

Can I just not be polite instead, that would be easier?

Dammit, I shouldn't have asked, should I. 298

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by Riemann

Dammit, I shouldn't have asked, should I.

Not putting a question mark after a question doesn't negate the fact that it's a question.

Just sayin' 299

[Riemann]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Not putting a question mark after a question doesn't negate the fact that it's a question.

But it can turn it into a rhetorical question, can't it. 300