Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:15 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Back atcha.

Sea-lioning doesn't bother me that much, possibly because, as you say and I agree, it's easier to see when it comes from the other side of the ideological divide. So I am more used to it.

I would be hard put to explain why even I thought I was debating less disingenuously than HD, or for that matter less disingenuously than anyone else. I was also recently suspended, although not for sea-lioning. Go figure.

It does not seem to me that sea-lioning disrupts debate all that much. If someone is not debating in good faith, that's why God invented snark, Cecil invented the Ignore list, and mice have scroll wheels. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
It is much easier to see if you see participating in a discussion to have intrinsic value in and of itself than if you just want to win arguments.
  #102  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:21 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
However, only an idiot takes something that is clearly an opinion and asks for a cite.
That's fair, but I personally don't think people should be making clearly opinionated statements in Great Debates or in Elections.
  #103  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:27 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
A lot of these examples? For instance...
Well, the original comic for one.

The thread where HD got a warning for another. Seems strange for posters to just throw around "TREASON!" and when asked to define treason, or what is "treasonous" about Trump's actions, instead of simply saying "Well, in my opinion, it's treason because of such and such" or "In my opinion it is treason, I don't care what the definitions are or what legal precedents there are" they simply double-down by implying the questioner agrees with Trump and hates freedom or whatever. And then later get moderators involved because they don't want to admit that their opinion has no basis in anything.

I face that a lot when I'm looking for someone's opinion or clarification of what a poster means when they state something "opinionated". Seems a lot of people are afraid to give clear, direct answers to what their opinions are, lest they be accused of having the "wrong" opinion or end up looking stupid because their opinion is baseless.
  #104  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:29 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...[thoughtful post]
(I'm not sure what a good way to show who I'm replying to -- maybe @Shodan? Anyway...)
[Moderating]
It's against board rules to replace another poster's quoted text with editorial content, even when it's complimentary.

No warning issued, but please try to avoid this in the future.
[/Moderating]
  #105  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:38 PM
John DiFool's Avatar
John DiFool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 18,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Doh!
Where is Annoyed Grunt when you need him, anyway?
  #106  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:43 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Well, the original comic for one.

The thread where HD got a warning for another. Seems strange for posters to just throw around "TREASON!" and when asked to define treason, or what is "treasonous" about Trump's actions, instead of simply saying "Well, in my opinion, it's treason because of such and such" or "In my opinion it is treason, I don't care what the definitions are or what legal precedents there are" they simply double-down by implying the questioner agrees with Trump and hates freedom or whatever. And then later get moderators involved because they don't want to admit that their opinion has no basis in anything....
I remember his post and that one really got under my skin. Here's why -- if you think a poster has said something incorrect, don't just, Socrates-like, ask why the poster thought what someone did is treasonous. Explain why the poster is wrong -- HD clearly had something in mind, so just put it right there in the post. That post was like fingers on the blackboard to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
[Moderating]
It's against board rules to replace another poster's quoted text with editorial content, even when it's complimentary.

No warning issued, but please try to avoid this in the future.
[/Moderating]
Sorry about that. I thought the brackets may have made it OK -- what is the best way to respond to a poster without reproducing the whole post? Just three dots? @[poster]?

Last edited by RitterSport; 10-17-2019 at 04:45 PM.
  #107  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:45 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Well, the original comic for one.

The thread where HD got a warning for another. Seems strange for posters to just throw around "TREASON!" and when asked to define treason, or what is "treasonous" about Trump's actions, instead of simply saying "Well, in my opinion, it's treason because of such and such" or "In my opinion it is treason, I don't care what the definitions are or what legal precedents there are" they simply double-down by implying the questioner agrees with Trump and hates freedom or whatever. And then later get moderators involved because they don't want to admit that their opinion has no basis in anything.

I face that a lot when I'm looking for someone's opinion or clarification of what a poster means when they state something "opinionated". Seems a lot of people are afraid to give clear, direct answers to what their opinions are, lest they be accused of having the "wrong" opinion or end up looking stupid because their opinion is baseless.
All opinions are ultimately baseless.

And I do see the posters justifying their opinions about whether or not a given action is treason or some such, but it is impossible to justify an opinion to someone else's complete satisfaction, even if those two people are in agreement, much less if they are not. If you keep digging at it, then yes, you will eventually run into where the poster cannot justify their opinion any further, and as you just said, if someone's opinion is baseless, then they look stupid. That is the entire point of the tactic, is to try to make someone else look stupid for daring to venture out an opinion that they cannot justify to your satisfaction.

Once again, it is not the request for further information that is sealioning. It is the repeated demand for further and further information and justifications that is sealioning.
For instance: tell me your favorite color, and then tell me why.
  #108  
Old 10-17-2019, 04:54 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
All opinions are ultimately baseless
Pretty sure Supreme Court opinions are based on something

Quote:
And I do see the posters justifying their opinions about whether or not a given action is treason or some such, but it is impossible to justify an opinion to someone else's complete satisfaction, even if those two people are in agreement, much less if they are not. If you keep digging at it, then yes, you will eventually run into where the poster cannot justify their opinion any further, and as you just said, if someone's opinion is baseless, then they look stupid. That is the entire point of the tactic, is to try to make someone else look stupid for daring to venture out an opinion that they cannot justify to your satisfaction
I don't believe asking someone to explain their opinion is making them look stupid, unless the opinion is, in fact, stupid.

Quote:
Once again, it is not the request for further information that is sealioning. It is the repeated demand for further and further information and justifications that is sealioning.
For instance: tell me your favorite color, and then tell me why.
Sorry, that tactic doesn't work on me

But since you asked:

I don't really have a favorite color, but most of my dress shirts are blue because I can mix and match my blue ties with my blue shirts and know they usually don't clash. So I guess it's blue.
  #109  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:02 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Sorry about that. I thought the brackets may have made it OK -- what is the best way to respond to a poster without reproducing the whole post? Just three dots? @[poster]?
I don't know about "best," but I'd probably just quote take the post's first sentence, or first clause of the first sentence and throw in some ellipses, then make "That's a thoughtful post," part of your response.
  #110  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:03 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
All opinions are ultimately baseless.
That would mean no single opinion has a foundation in fact. That is a helluva claim.
  #111  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:46 PM
Little Brøther is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 64
I realize that it doesn't help much to say that this is a "one knows it when one sees it" phenomenon, but it applies here. I only happened upon the Internet term "sealion" recently. It perfectly captures a common variation of "concern troll" that I've occasionally laboriously described from scratch, as it were; the term provoked a "Eureka!" response.

It immediately took me back to "Old Joe", an archtypal sealion: "Old Joe" turned up at Glenn Greenwald's Salon comments threads, c. 2005 or so. He presented himself as a well-meaning older geezer who was impressed as hell by the general quality of the comments threads, and very 'umbly hoped that the intelligent, well-informed, astute commenters would be willing to better "help" him understand domestic political and geopolitical matters.

He began with pathetic self-abnegation, admitting that he wasn't too knowledgeable about current events and couldn't contribute much. But was it OK if he hung around to ask some questions and maybe learn a few things?

Beneath this deferential Uriah Heep guise of participating as a late-blooming political novice, he slowly but surely disclosed his own ironclad reactionary, right-wing views. Meanwhile, he came to hijack and dominate threads by constantly feigning submissive ignorance or confusion; for a long time, many commenters took him at face value and obligingly stopped to answer his questions and attempt to resolve and clarify his piteous perplexity.

I never really fell for Old Joe's act, especially when I noticed that he remained entirely unaffected by all of the worthwhile discussion and responses he got; in a nutshell, Old Joe posed the same questions and apprehensions over and over again, as if he were expressing them for the first time. The courtroom objection "Asked and answered!" comes to mind.

Moreover, he came to defend his positions by repeating alleged facts and arguments that had previously been aired out and debunked or refuted, usually more than once-- at which time, Old Joe would 'umbly admit that he "stood corrected". This went on for too long, because there were always a few new or imperceptive commenters willing to be strung along; well-meaning commenters unfamiliar with his MO would sympathetically defend him.

As the more perspicacious commenters began to catch on and call him out, Old Joe retreated to hand-wringing dismay-- gee whiz, why were people being so mean to him, since he was just an 'umble guy trying to get a better understanding of important sociopolitical issues? But his air of injured defensiveness was clearly passive-aggressive-- clearly to me, anyway.

I can't remember if Old Joe finally just disappeared, or if he was still going strong when I moved on. But I regard him as an Alpha Sealion.
  #112  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:48 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Pretty sure Supreme Court opinions are based on something
Yes, upon the opinions of the judges.
Quote:

I don't believe asking someone to explain their opinion is making them look stupid, unless the opinion is, in fact, stupid.
If you start from the standpoint that their opinion is stupid, and your goal is to make them look stupid for having that opinion, then you asking them to "explain" their opinion is trying to make them look stupid.
Quote:

Sorry, that tactic doesn't work on me

But since you asked:

I don't really have a favorite color, but most of my dress shirts are blue because I can mix and match my blue ties with my blue shirts and know they usually don't clash. So I guess it's blue.
So, what do you have against red? I don't understand why you don't prefer red to blue, as obviously, red is a far superior color. Could you explain your reasoning in choosing blue over red, please? I'm just trying to have a reasonable civil conversation about why you seem to have something against red.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
That would mean no single opinion has a foundation in fact. That is a helluva claim.
Conclusions have foundations in fact. Opinions do not.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-17-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #113  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:49 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
(I cannot believe I'm engaging with you)

That's because your original post was incorrect. He wasn't suspended for sealioning, he was suspended for having multiple warnings, including failure to follow moderator instructions, sexualizing posters and their arguments, JAQ'ing off, accusing another poster of lying, insults, being a jerk (in the ITD warning, basically), and also sealioning.

Here's your chance to redeem yourself -- were you wrong when you said he follows the rules except for sealioning?

I don't think I've ever received a warning, let alone gotten suspended. It's not that hard to debate in good faith, bring cites when making claims, address the OP, and not insult others.
Hmm. I guess I was wrong!

That hurts almost as walking out of the basement and into the sun.
  #114  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:57 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Hmm. I guess I was wrong!

That hurts almost as walking out of the basement and into the sun.
See, Shodan? Someone admitting error!
  #115  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:09 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don't see any reason why disingenuous or disruptive behavior should be tolerated just because "someone else can always ignore it."

Otherwise, why can't I tell you to go cram a MAGA hat up your lilly white ass in the Elections or Great Debate forums? You can always ignore it. You have agency. And, since I'm a liberal, the mods will love me and the throngs of lefties will build statues in my honor. So why shouldn't I come up with creative suggestions on your orifices in some other forums here?

ETA: oh and by the way, I'll add that DrDeth sometimes exhibits a similar pattern of asking for cites and then saying they don't count. He, however, is far more aggressive and insulting than HD. If you are concerned about partisanship with this criticism of debate styles, listen to this: the mods should do something about DrDeth too.

There. Feel better?
Because insulting someone and being hostile like your example is relatively clear cut. Asking for proof when someone is accused of treason, which is a capital crime, seems like it's actually relevant to a thread talking about impeachment. Too often words like treason are used with absolutely no justification merely to shape a narrative or score political points. I actually have more of a problem with people who dishonestly call others treasonous, or nazis, or whatever or use the deliberately inflammatory word of the day than I do with those who want those words used narrowly and properly.

Last edited by octopus; 10-17-2019 at 06:10 PM.
  #116  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:10 PM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,346
<collapses onto fainting couch>
  #117  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:29 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's fair, but I personally don't think people should be making clearly opinionated statements in Great Debates or in Elections.
Well shit, you might as well shut down those forums then.
  #118  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:35 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Because insulting someone and being hostile like your example is relatively clear cut. Asking for proof when someone is accused of treason, which is a capital crime, seems like it's actually relevant to a thread talking about impeachment. Too often words like treason are used with absolutely no justification merely to shape a narrative or score political points. I actually have more of a problem with people who dishonestly call others treasonous, or nazis, or whatever or use the deliberately inflammatory word of the day than I do with those who want those words used narrowly and properly.
I think your obsession with the meaning of treason is nothing more than trying to silence people you disagree with.
  #119  
Old 10-17-2019, 06:44 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I think the term means when this is done disingenuously, IOW when it's time to recognize the truth of a simple statement in order to establish that you are interacting in good faith, that you live in the same world, you just refuse and go backwards to a pedantic point.

It’s used for various reasons and in various circumstances. However, a very common one is when the so-called “sea lion“ has put the person they are politely questioning in an awkward position, and that person would rather not have to actually justify their stance because they really can’t, other than “this is what we woke people have collectively agreed to insist is the truth, without need of logic or evidence; and by asking that some be provided, you are demonstrating yourself to be right wing scum and beneath my contempt”.
  #120  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:06 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
I think the essence of sealioning is simply that you are not remotely open-minded about an issue, you enter a debate in an ostensibly polite and reasonable manner, but with a bad-faith aim to simply make people waste time debating you extensively and pointlessly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which covers a large majority of the political discussions on the SDMB, except not always with the "polite and reasonable" part. See: Banquet Bear, Czarcasm, Snowboarder Bo, etc., etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
FWIW - Snowboarder Bo. Czarcasm does more of the JAQ part of sea-lioning. Banquet Bear is probably closer.Although you are correct that it is harder to see when you agree with a post/poster.
...I can assure you that there is no bad faith going on with my argument. On the contrary, in that particular thread you argued in bad faith.

But that's beside the point.

I think everyone here is pushing the boundaries of what sealioning is: at least in terms of the original meaning. Sealioning had its origins around the goobergate debacle, and while "trolling" is a key component to what sealioning is, the other part of the definition, harassment, is an intrinsic part of the definition in my eyes. Without it then you simply have trolling, or disingenuous/bad faith debating. I don't see Hurricane's behaviour as sealioning. His intent isn't to harass. There are millions of Americans that agree with him. He holds positions that I find infuriating. But I personally can't separate the term from the way I saw it being used during goobergate, and not much on this board comes close to meeting that definition in my personal opinion.
  #121  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:14 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Because insulting someone and being hostile like your example is relatively clear cut. Asking for proof when someone is accused of treason, which is a capital crime, seems like it's actually relevant to a thread talking about impeachment. Too often words like treason are used with absolutely no justification merely to shape a narrative or score political points. I actually have more of a problem with people who dishonestly call others treasonous, or nazis, or whatever or use the deliberately inflammatory word of the day than I do with those who want those words used narrowly and properly.
But if I say that betraying the Kurds is treason, then focusing on my use of treason, and making me justify it by legal definition is simply a distraction. You are not asking for evidence of treason, you are demanding that I justify my use of the word.

If I call someone a Nazi because the support fascist policies, then getting into the semantics of why they are not really the same as the Germans of 1945 is also just a distraction.


That is often the case here, is that someone uses a word in a colloquial fashion, rather than a legal one, and it is demanded to know, with only the limited knowledge available to those of us posting on a messageboard, how the actions rise to the level that is satisfied by the law.
  #122  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:22 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I don't see Hurricane's behaviour as sealioning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
All kidding aside, on this board the key things to pay attention to are:

1. Overuse of asking for cites,
2. Fixation on the use of a particular word, such as asking for precise definitions and then quibbling with them,
3. If someone provides ten points in favor of an idea or whatever, proceeding to nitpick the hell out of one in order to "disprove" the other nine,
4. Altering the basics of the debate or moving the goalposts of a standard of proof, forcing others to essentially go back to square one,
5. An extreme focus on the process of a debate, rather than the main point (e.g., if someone says the sky is blue, the troll/sealioner will focus discussion individually/serially on the words, meaning, and standard of proof for "sky," "is," and "blue" rather than coming out with a competing argument that the sky is a different color.
1. He repeatedly asks for cites, which he ignores and asks again later.
2. He fixates on literal meanings of words & phrases.
3. He picks out what he evidently sees as the weakest opposing point and argues against that as if it disproves all other points.
4. He disrupts threads by dragging in something which, at first, seems relevant but is ultimately proven to be inconsequential (e.g., his weaksauce F-35 crap).
  #123  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:23 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It’s used for various reasons and in various circumstances. However, a very common one is when the so-called “sea lion“ has put the person they are politely questioning in an awkward position, and that person would rather not have to actually justify their stance because they really can’t, other than “this is what we woke people have collectively agreed to insist is the truth, without need of logic or evidence; and by asking that some be provided, you are demonstrating yourself to be right wing scum and beneath my contempt”.
People who are "woke" aren't ashamed of their world view. Underneath, in the deepest recesses, it seems to me that they want better outcomes on some issues. It is funny to see you try to make a skit out of an imagined woke troll.

If people are dog whistling I get what your example is saying. They will be cagy about their actual motive to post. Your example sounds like a conservative.
  #124  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:20 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, what do you have against red? I don't understand why you don't prefer red to blue, as obviously, red is a far superior color. Could you explain your reasoning in choosing blue over red, please? I'm just trying to have a reasonable civil conversation about why you seem to have something against red.
I don't have anything against red. I explained already that I just get blue shirts and ties so I can mix and match them without much thought. I appreciate your opinion of the color red, thanks for sharing!

See? Doesn't work on me. I bet I can answer questions for a lot longer than you care to ask them
  #125  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:30 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,278
When you have a good position you don't sealion or need to. In fact I think it might not even be possible to sealion from a good argument.

Conservatives, your positions have been bad. Look around you, here, your room, the world, anywhere.

You are the only current suspects in this case.
  #126  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:32 PM
pool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,606
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that "sealioning" is a really fucking gay term, it seems to be really craving to be accepted into the vernacular but it's fucking retarded.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #127  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:36 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But if I say that betraying the Kurds is treason, then focusing on my use of treason, and making me justify it by legal definition is simply a distraction. You are not asking for evidence of treason, you are demanding that I justify my use of the word.
But how else would someone know why you consider betraying the Kurds "treason" without asking you what you consider "treason" is and why you think betraying the Kurds rises to that definition?

Should people just accept that it is treason because you say so?
  #128  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:44 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But if I say that betraying the Kurds is treason, then focusing on my use of treason, and making me justify it by legal definition is simply a distraction. You are not asking for evidence of treason, you are demanding that I justify my use of the word.

If I call someone a Nazi because the support fascist policies, then getting into the semantics of why they are not really the same as the Germans of 1945 is also just a distraction.


That is often the case here, is that someone uses a word in a colloquial fashion, rather than a legal one, and it is demanded to know, with only the limited knowledge available to those of us posting on a messageboard, how the actions rise to the level that is satisfied by the law.
Using it informally you’d have a point. But the words aren’t being used informally. The words are used to support removal from office. Furthermore, when words like Nazi are directed at posters here they are used as inflammatory and dishonest slurs.
  #129  
Old 10-17-2019, 08:59 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't have anything against red. I explained already that I just get blue shirts and ties so I can mix and match them without much thought. I appreciate your opinion of the color red, thanks for sharing!

See? Doesn't work on me. I bet I can answer questions for a lot longer than you care to ask them
In discussions where you don't give a shit about the content, sealions aren't particularly irritating. Imagine if someone was doing this to you when you were talking about something you actually cared about, though.
  #130  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:03 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
When you have a good position you don't sealion or need to. In fact I think it might not even be possible to sealion from a good argument.

Conservatives, your positions have been bad. Look around you, here, your room, the world, anywhere.

You are the only current suspects in this case.
Any cites of those imaginary straw man conservatives)
  #131  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:09 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
In discussions where you don't give a shit about the content, sealions aren't particularly irritating. Imagine if someone was doing this to you when you were talking about something you actually cared about, though.
I would do the same thing. I own my opinions and can explain them for as long as someone is interested in them for whatever reason.
  #132  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:11 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Any cites of those imaginary straw man conservatives)
Marriage should only be between a man and a woman is pretty bad. I cite the GOP party platform.

Last edited by manson1972; 10-17-2019 at 09:12 PM.
  #133  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:26 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Any cites of those imaginary straw man conservatives)
OK. Narrow it down to a single topic or sector and I'll tell you what the bad conservative postion is, one that would need to sealion to compete in a real argument.
  #134  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:37 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
People who are "woke" aren't ashamed of their world view. Underneath, in the deepest recesses, it seems to me that they want better outcomes on some issues. It is funny to see you try to make a skit out of an imagined woke troll.

If people are dog whistling I get what your example is saying. They will be cagy about their actual motive to post. Your example sounds like a conservative.
Like always, the enemies of the reactionary possess all characteristics at once. SJWs and assorted woke people are at the same time argumentative, overly vocal and shouting down assholespersecuted cis white men, but at the same time devious and reluctant to identify themselves or explain their worldview at any length. Crafty buggers.
  #135  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:46 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think your obsession with the meaning of treason is nothing more than trying to silence people you disagree with.
You don't think that.
  #136  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:47 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Marriage should only be between a man and a woman is pretty bad. I cite the GOP party platform.
Define man or woman.
  #137  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:53 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Define man or woman.
What's the GOP's definition?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #138  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:07 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
What's the GOP's definition?
I don't know anymore. I don't even know what is is.
  #139  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:17 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,582
I have a 5th grade science class and one of the kids spends the entire 40 minutes thinking of question after question after question. The problem is that he doesn’t think about the answers or ask actual followup questions. He’s obviously not that interested in learning more, he just likes to waste time.

Since I’m the “mod” of that class, then it was easy enough to fix. He gets one question per day.
  #140  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:29 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I don't know anymore. I don't even know what is is.
So you're saying you are out of touch/ill informed of your party's stance? If so, I applaud your self realization, and perhaps i might see hope for your and America's future.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.

Last edited by snfaulkner; 10-18-2019 at 12:30 AM.
  #141  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:41 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
It seems to me a lot of these examples are people spouting off baseless opinions like "Trump is a criminal" and then getting mad when someone asks them for anything that supports their opinion. Seems like a lot of so-called "sealioning" could be avoided if people just owned up with "I don't have anything concrete to base my opinion on, I just think it's true"
The original "sea lion" said:
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”

And that's what they did Socrates in for, he wouldn't stop asking questions to people who rather not delve in what the answers (or lack of answers) told about themselves and what they believed to be true.
  #142  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:58 AM
Personal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Beach
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoBayer View Post
I have a 5th grade science class and one of the kids spends the entire 40 minutes thinking of question after question after question. The problem is that he doesn’t think about the answers or ask actual followup questions. He’s obviously not that interested in learning more, he just likes to waste time.

Since I’m the “mod” of that class, then it was easy enough to fix. He gets one question per day.
That kid's going to end up in law school and drive all the other 1Ls nuts.
  #143  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:11 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I may be missing something here but the woman did state that she didn't like sealions did she not?
I needn't explain my beet aversion. But what people do NOT dislike sea lions?
  • Folks who have never been close enough to smell or be endangered by them.
  • Folks who, if in their proximity, lack a sense of smell and/or survival instinct.
  • Folks with no friends nor kin who suffered from smelly, dangerous pinnipeds.
  • Folks who are paid to associate with and/or slaughter large, juicy pinnipeds.
  • Wildlife photographers with long telephoto lenses and handy escape routes.
  • Really sick pervs and pr0n producers, furries in sea lion suits, and Buddha.
Everyone else can freely despise them without excuse. Thus the dislike is normal, be they near or far, no alibi needed. Just as I can freely dislike beets. And if a beet harassed me, I would catapult it as far as possible, same as an online sealionist.
  #144  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:25 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Seems strange for posters to just throw around "TREASON!" and when asked to define treason, or what is "treasonous" about Trump's actions, instead of simply saying "Well, in my opinion, it's treason because of such and such" or "In my opinion it is treason, I don't care what the definitions are or what legal precedents there are" they simply double-down by implying the questioner agrees with Trump and hates freedom or whatever.
That's what happens when like in the US, the definition of "treason" is so narrow that one can blatantly commit treason without it being legal treason. People have to call it something, and most people are going to use the obvious word regardless of the official legal definition.
  #145  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:33 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Maybe you need some completely different term, because all this talk about asking insincere questions, etc. just doesn't match up to the actual cartoon. This woman says she doesn't like sea lions. A sea lion overhears this* and asks her what sea lions ever did to her? Does she have any evidence to back up her negative opinion about sea lions? She never offers any or apologizes for having offended him--just yells at him to go away. The sea lion says there's no reason for her to raise her voice and that he has been unfailingly polite while they have been nothing but rude.

If there's anything we can be fairly confident of, it's that the sea lion is sincere about not being super jazzed about being declared as a disliked class or entity or whatever. What really bothers the woman and her friend (meaning, really, the cartoonist) is that the sea lion doesn't just scream at her for being a bitch or whatever, because if he did she could be publicly justified in avoiding any further interaction. Instead, he politely asks her to justify her prejudice against him. The reason she and the cartoonist don't like this is that in civil society, this is understood to put him in a sympathetic position for understandable reasons. So this cartoon was a way to vent about how annoying it is to be put on the spot that way, and not have any way to get out of answering for the prejudice. That's quite clearly what it is about: it is right there in the text.

So it boils down to a complaint of "Don't you hate it when you are being catty and nasty about a class of people, and then one of them overhears you and calls you out on it, but in a polite way that makes them look like the victim and you look like the asshole?" To then elevate this to some honorable stance, an amulet to be wielded whenever needed, is completely unsupportable.

*He notes that it was in a public place, i.e. Twitter. This pair of friends' disgruntled reaction is something I have seen many times, from people who think they should be able to talk whatever shit they like on Twitter and not have anyone who isn't sympathetic to them weigh in. That's not how Twitter works. It's not fucking Facebook. Or you can choose to keep stuff protected like on Facebook, but then you won't have the chance for something you say to go viral in a positive way. You can't have it both ways, have your cake and eat it too.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-18-2019 at 02:37 AM.
  #146  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:12 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Maybe you need some completely different term, because all this talk about asking insincere questions, etc. just doesn't match up to the actual cartoon. This woman says she doesn't like sea lions.
No, she says she could do without them. That's neither catty nor nasty. She merely expressed a preference of hers during a casual conversation with someone else. That's it.

Quote:
*He notes that it was in a public place, i.e. Twitter.
Yes. Which makes him the asshole. She said it in a private conversation with another person inside an automobile. That's hardly a public space. She didn't shout it from atop a pillar with a megaphone hoping people would hear (i.e. Twitter). A third person butting into their conversation and making demands is an asshole.
He further keeps being the asshole by badgering them both about it wherever they go henceforth, when clearly they're not interested. Just because he's "polite" (that is to say, uses polite language) doesn't mean he isn't being a dick. You can couch horrible things in perfectly PC and polite language - to whit. And if I don't care to talk to you or address your dubious points, you don't get to harass me into doing so.
Which is what sealioning is essentially about : being a dick while being very careful about appearing to be "civil" in order to paint oneself as the put-upon victim should said dickishness be pointed out.

Quote:
So it boils down to a complaint of "Don't you hate it when you are being catty and nasty about a class of people, and then one of them overhears you and calls you out on it, but in a polite way that makes them look like the victim and you look like the asshole?" To then elevate this to some honorable stance, an amulet to be wielded whenever needed, is completely unsupportable.
This is pretty choice from someone who keeps whinging about being called an islamophobe for repeatedly being an asshole about a class of people on a public forum .

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-18-2019 at 03:16 AM.
  #147  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:38 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Kobal, you have really wandered into the wilderness with this post. Are you actually this confused or are you desperately spinning?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
She said it in a private conversation with another person inside an automobile. That's hardly a public space. She didn't shout it from atop a pillar with a megaphone hoping people would hear (i.e. Twitter).

You actually think this cartoon is about people having private conversations face-to-face in their cars and being accosted by someone who appears out of nowhere? Seriously? Duuude. It's quite obviously about Twitter and other areas of social media, plus maybe Reddit, message boards like this one, etc. But mostly it's about Twitter. I think even the people who love this cartoon would generally acknowledge that. [ETA: And if it's really what you claim it is, how can anyone be "sealioning" here at the SDMB? What you are claiming makes absolutely no sense. Did you think this through at all before posting it?]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
This is pretty choice from someone who keeps whinging about being called an islamophobe for repeatedly being an asshole about a class of people on a public forum .

I can sort of see why you think you have a good zinger here, but once again you have lost the plot. Do you really think that if a Muslim person challenged me as to why I am anti-Islam, I would dodge the question or try to make the conversation stop? No. I would answer. I would engage. I would quote Sam Harris from his latest podcast because he says it better than I could:

SPOILER:

Quote:
The problem with the concept of Islamophobia is: it is a way of silencing criticism of a set of ideas. It's conflating, deliberately conflating, a concern about specific ideas--ideas that are extremely right wing: forcing women to live in bags, not letting them drive, not letting them get an education, throwing homosexuals off rooftops...I mean, these are not liberal values. It's conflating a criticism of that, with intolerance toward Muslims as people, or Arabs as people, or brown-skinned people from other countries as people. And that's just insane, but that's the default setting on the left at the moment, is that kind of confusion.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-18-2019 at 03:41 AM.
  #148  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:59 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You actually think this cartoon is about people having private conversations face-to-face in their cars and being accosted by someone who appears out of nowhere? Seriously? Duuude. It's quite obviously about Twitter and other areas of social media, plus maybe Reddit, message boards like this one, etc. But mostly it's about Twitter. I think even the people who love this cartoon would generally acknowledge that. [ETA: And if it's really what you claim it is, how can anyone be "sealioning" here at the SDMB? What you are claiming makes absolutely no sense. Did you think this through at all before posting it?]
Is it that obvious ? I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting plenty of sealions offline.

But even on a "public" forum like the SDMB, or on Twitter, conversations between individuals do happen. They might not be private, strictly speaking, but they're still ongoing conversations that don't involve a sea lion.
If poster A says something, poster B engages, poster A responds and so on, then suddenly poster C starts haranguing them, keeps interjecting into the discussion they were having and demands they address what he's saying (which they are ignoring for any reason, though most often it's because they recognize him as a disingenuous ass) or tries to force the conversation towards his pet cause ; then he's being a nuisance, no matter how "polite" his wording is, nor how urgently he plucks his MahFreeSpeech(tm) harp.

Quote:
Do you really think that if a Muslim person challenged me as to why I am anti-Islam, I would dodge the question or try to make the conversation stop? I would quote Sam Harris from his latest podcast because he says it better than I could:
WE ARE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST
  #149  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:33 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Their private conversation on a public forum about how they don't like his kind. Riiiight. How dare he try to politely inject himself into that?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-18-2019 at 04:33 AM.
  #150  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:59 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Again, let's get real about what this cartoon is really metaphorically representing. A couple (or more) woke feminist types on Twitter, possibly young WOC, engage in some kind of snarky banter about how much straight white dudes suck. "God love the confidence of a mediocre white man", that type of thing. They don't intend this to be private. They want it to be liked, praised, retweeted to the heavens. What they don't want is for some middle-aged straight white dude to come along and politely object "Really? That's not very nice. What gives you the right to disparage or dismiss me that way without knowing me? Can you offer some actual tangible reason for doing so?"

Now they are BUS-TED. It's very awkward. But along comes this cartoonist to give them an out. Just say the straight white dude is "sealioning" and brush him off, problem solved. It's like the emperor's new clothes: as long as they can get enough of their woke comrades in the amen choir to insist that this all somehow makes sense, they are good to go. Who needs intellectual honesty when you have a bunch of yes-people in your woke bubble to provide you (and each other) constant affirmation and shout down the critics?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017