Fuckin’ spell-check spell check spellcheck trolling me…
…it wasn’t supposed to be taken literally. Imagine instead they were talking about racists. That they said they could “do without more racists.”
Do you think the couple owe a random person on the internet an explanation for that opinion?
Or imagine they were talking about goobergaters. “I could do without the goobergaters.”
Do you think the couple owe a goobergater a civil conversation about what they said? Because “ethics in games journalism?”
People have zero obligation to engage with anyone.
True enough, and that’s all the comic portrays. But the comic does not portray what sealioning is. Sealioning is more than just being persistent and demanding engagement under inappropriate circumstances.
That’s a rather bizarre comment, considering that the comic is indisputably the origin of the “sea-lioning” internet trope, and everything that we understand it to mean.
…I’m not sure what you mean here, or why this matters. The comic came first. It describes an interaction that we now call sealioning.
It’s obviously the origin of the name of the trope, but clearly it is not the origin of everything that we understand it to mean, since a key element of sealioning is disingenuousness - which you have already acknowledged is absent in the comic.
So what? This is analogous to the etymological fallacy.
…what are you even going on about now?
I was addressing Martini’s specific point about the “couple being part of the problem.” They are not. Because they have no obligation to engage. This has nothing to do with how sealioning has come to be defined.
This is getting silly. No, I didn’t “acknowledge” that disingenuousness was absent in the comic – I said that it was impractical for a simple cartoon to accurately portray all the nuances you demand. The cartoon wasn’t the origin of the “name” of the trope, it was obviously the origin of the trope itself.
In my reading of it, the disingenuousness is absolutely there. Who, in overhearing a casual comment, would pursue the commenter with relentless determination night and day demanding evidence and justification, other than someone merely intending to harass (i.e.- troll) them?
The couple are portrayed in a public place. The situation appears analogous to two people in a mall overheard saying “I hate Koreans” by a person who is Korean. I suspect in that scenario your analysis of the ethics/etiquette of the situation would not be just to say that the Korean should shut up because the couple have no obligation to engage.
So the comic really doesn’t set up a good portrayal of what we now mean by sealioning.
Not necessarily “owe”, but they don’t get to complain about that person continuing to press for an explanation directly relating to that person (or a group they’re a member of) when they’ve refused to provide anything.
So referring to your example, it’d take a few seconds for the couple to say (for example) “I could do without you lot from gamergate because of the harm you’ve caused to gaming as a hobby, including entrenching the idea all gamers are basement-dwelling misogynistic neckbeards.” Question has been asked, question has been given a legitimate answer. Might not be what the askee wanted as an answer, but it is a real, genuine answer to the question.
I’ve agreed that the element of inappropriate persistence obviously is portrayed, so please stop wasting both our time by attacking that straw man. You know as well as I do that’s not what disingenuousness means. What, in the comic, indicates that the sea lion actually already knows why she dislikes sea lions, and is not honestly curious? Absolutely nothing. It appears, as I said, analogous to a Korean person overhearing someone saying they hate Koreans. It might not be appropriate for the Korean to pursue them to their home and keep pestering them, but it would be somewhat understandable why the Korean would genuinely want to know what the fuck they meant. And that Korean would not be sealioning.
…I mean: I’d engage with this post, but what you have written appears to be a clear portrayal of what we now mean by sealioning. Was that your intent?
Of course, they get to complain. The person is in their house.
You know that happened, right?
You know that people gave this answer, and variations of this answer, over and over again?
We aren’t talking about a single person.
The tactic was used to flood email accounts. It was used to flood twitter feeds, and to shut down conversation. It wasn’t a matter of responding to a single person once. It was thousands of replies and mentions and DM’s and emails every single hour of every single day.
Sealions have zero interest in good faith debate. And people have zero obligation to give them the time of day.
No, I don’t agree that this what sealioning means, and nor do any of the other defintions posted above.
Sealioning means that the questioner is not just inappropriately persistent but also insincere in their purported desire to understand, that in truth they already know the answer, and they are asking disingenuously with a veneer of reasonableness designed to antagonize.
Exactly what Merriam Webster says as I linked above, along with the other definitions linked above.
That doesn’t remotely corresponding to a Korean overhearing someone saying they hate Koreans and genuinely wanting to know what the fuck is going on.
…huh.
Looks that way to me. Because while one could look argue that the cartoon was “analogous to two people in a mall overheard saying “I hate Koreans” by a person who is Korean”, that clearly wasn’t the intent of the cartoon. And it’s the intent that is relevant here, is it not?
No. Whatever the intent of the cartoon, we’re discussing whether it is in fact an accurate and effective portrayal of the current definition of sealioining. If you believe that the cartoon effectively portrays someone asking disingenuous questions, make that case. I don’t see it.
And obviously they get to complain about that, because it’s clearly inappropriate. It’s also part of the humour and why the comic is funny (taking a reasonable desire to want an answer to a question to a ludicrous extreme).
But the thing that sparked the exchange - making a derogatory comment about someone/a group in public and then refusing to elaborate even slightly on why the person feels that way/felt the need to make that comment - is absolutely a reasonable thing for the overhearer to want to know “Why?” - basically, as in the example @Riemann gave.
As for the gamergate stuff: I feel like there’s some other issue you have there, because it’s not analogous to a comic about a sealion wanting to know why random people are talking shit about its entire species, in public, for no apparent reason.
And I agree that insincerity is a key element of sealioning - the questioner already knows the answer and is persisting merely (or largely) to piss off/troll/antagonise the other person, not out of any desire to actually find out their thoughts on the matter or have a genuine debate/discussion.
…of course we do. Because prior to responding to this thread I looked up what David Malki had to say about the response to his cartoon, and I think the response indicates he clearly didn’t mean to show two people saying “I hate Koreans”.
https://wondermark.com/sea-lion-verb/
Why do I have to make a case for something that I haven’t even asserted?
This is starting to get extremely meta.
And it is entirely reasonable for the couple to choose not to elaborate.
It’s entirely relevant in context, considering the origins and history of the word in relation to goobergate. The cartoon didn’t come out of nowhere.
I had already edited my post to reflect the fact that although of course we may in fact know something of the cartoonist’s intent, that’s irrelevant to whether the cartoon is in fact an accurate and effective portrayal of the definition of sealioning in current usage.
You are claiming that the comic is an accurate portrayal of sealioning, are you not? I am disputing that, because the element of disingenuousness is absent in the comic. So I’m asking you to support your position by explaining how you think the cartoon effectively portrays a questioner who is not only inappropriately persistent, but also disingenuous.
Whereas I assert is is not, just as I assume you would have a reaction analogous to “Dude, what the hell?” if someone said “You know, I could do without Banquet Bear” and then be annoyed about it when they just rolled their eyes at you when you asked why they felt that way.
As for the gamergate stuff, I’m afraid that still sounds like a personal issue you have (not unreasonably) with that whole thing, rather than something that has direct relevance to this discussion.
…what does this have to do with anything I said?
Can you do us all a favour and quote what it is that I said that you are actually disagreeing with, so I know what it is you are talking about?
Thanks in advance.