…how is it not?
If you want to dispute any of the facts that I said, then feel free do dispute it. But the goobergate stuff is relevant to both how the term sealioning originated, and also how various tactics (including ignoring the sealion) came about. Goobergate clearly illustrates why your solution of " take a few seconds for the couple to say" doesn’t work.
I literally addressed that in the words right after the bit you quoted.
And as for the gamergate stuff, that’s talking about dealing with an entire group (for want of a better term), as opposed to a one-one one (or near enough to it) discussion on a small messageboard.
Also: the gamergaters know why people don’t like them. They’re fully aware of it. Unlike the proverbial sealion, who (as far as we, the reader knows) has absolutely no reason at all, whatsoever, to understand why anyone would dislike them as a group/species.
I’m not going to search through the thread. If I have misundestood any of your posts, I apologize in advance. But I’ve made it quite clear what I think is in dispute here, so why not express your opinion on what I’ve asked?
(1) Do you agree that disingenuousness, not just inappropriate persistence, is an essential element of the concept of sealioining?
(2) Do you think the cartoon effectively portrays a disingenuous questioner, and if so how?
If you have no opinion on these matters, fine. But that’s the conversation you originally jumped into.
…no you didn’t.
If someone said " “You know, I could do without Banquet Bear ” why would that matter to me? And why would someone be obligated to defend that position?
It is entirely reasonable for someone to not have to elaborate on why they could do without me. Why do you think its unreasonable?
You do realise that the sealion is a goobergater?
Because I have zero obligation to answer random questions asked over-and-over again from random people on the internet that have nothing to do with anything I’ve said?
Do you realise how meta you are being here? Is this intentional?
I didn’t jump into a conversation with you. I was addressing a specific thing that somebody else said, then you jumped into the conversation with me.
You jumped into a conversation that a number of people had been having for some time, addressing something that was already a key aspect of that conversation. If you failed to read the thread and pick up on the context of the broader conversation, don’t complain if some degree of confusion ensues.
Good grief that’s ridiculous. You asked for clarification of what I thought was in dispute, and I told you in good faith in the clearest way I thought possible. If you have no opinion on the matter, I really couldn’t care less.
If you’d prefer I be less polite to eliminate the possibility I might be sealioining, I will be happy to oblige.
…I understand the broader conversation. I was addressing something specific, not something broad. If that confused you: that isn’t my fault.
I asked for clarification on what I said that you disagreed with. Not with what you thought was “in dispute.”
Yes, I did.
I find it extremely unlikely that you would be totally OK with someone saying they don’t care for you/ want you around and could just shrug it off with “Oh well, I guess they’ve got their reasons. I don’t care.”
Normal people don’t think that way. Normal people want to know why someone doesn’t care for them/want them around, even if they might ultimately disagree with those reasons.
I think if someone is going to make derogatory comments about a specific individual or group, then it’s reasonable they articulate the reasoning behind having those views. I don’t have to agree with them, but they should still articulate them if asked in good faith.
And I think that’s reasonable because if I was going around saying “I could do without X” and X (or a member of X) asked why, I’d be happy to tell them, and in return, I would expect the same courtesy in return. Treat others how you want to be treated, in other words.
I actually don’t care because gamergate is not relevant to the discussion in this thread, and you’re not doing yourself any favours by using a childish nickname for them either. You’ve obviously got some issue with gamergate (and there’s certainly plenty of issues to have with them), but carrying on about them the way you are isn’t making the amazing point you seem to think it is.
And I told you I’m more interested in actually discussing substantive issues rather than playing some stupid game of dissecting what prior comments may or may not have meant. If you’re not interested in the issues that were being discussed in the broader conversation that you entered (which I accurately summarized with those two questions), as I say I really couldn’t care less.
Yes, this is why the comic is not a good example. Say we had a thread about gun control, and someone posted that they hate laser sights on guns, they should be banned. Asking why is reasonable, and a “go away” answer would not be acceptable. True, after someone asked a couple-three times and got no real answer, it would be churlish to keep asking and could be modded.
Sure, but you don’t know someone is sealioning from their first reasonable question. Here were are talking about the SDMB. 1.Someone states a slightly unusual opinion. 2. They are asked to explain. 3. The answer is Go away!
The only rude person, so far, is the “Go away” reply. That is a poor response and the questioner has asked a quite legit question- to which we do have some sort of obligation to answer (which could be “I don’t care to discuss it further, sorry I even said that.). So to continue , the questioner asks again ‘"Go away’ is not an acceptable answer, please explain”. It is only when the questioner persists that it gets into sealioning or harassing.
Hell, we have a well known poster here who will ask a question. A full and complete answer will be give, The question is repeated as if the explanation was never made. Wash, rinse, repeat. He does this like for 3-4 times in a row. That, to me, is sealioning.
Right.
I do not think the cartoon was supposed to be a meme starter. Indeed his later comments show he had no idea.
…what you want or what you don’t want isn’t relevant here.
It is entirely reasonable to choose not to engage any further.
But they are not obligated to respond right? It is entirely reasonable to say they don’t like racists, and not have to articulate why they don’t like racists, right?
And it would be hypocritical to also not believe that it is entirely reasonable to not articulate why you don’t like banquet_bears as well?
Its entirely relevant to the comic. We are discussing the comic right? You understand the context in which the comic was posted right? And how the comic was directly related to the harassment campaigns that was going on at the time?
This was the original exchange (prior to your edit of your post)
The bolded part has nothing to do with the snippet you quoted, and nothing to do with anything I had previously said. I have no idea why you felt I needed to hear that you thought that “the comic does not portray what sealioning is”, but thanks for sharing?
I mean…sometimes you do. Especially in regard to certain topics. If you are having a conversation about 9/11, and someone interrupts you to say: “but did you know that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel?” It isn’t hard to know in which direction the conversation is going to go. Sealioning doesn’t have to involve reasonable questions. It’s more faux-civility, than reasonableness, that distinguishes sealioning.
Yes it is and no it’s not.
Yes they are and saying “I don’t like racists” is a different kettle of fish because literally everyone, including racists themselves, know why people don’t like them. Same as people doing the whole “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” thing. They know people think they’re nutty conspiracy theorists. They’re asking to be a dick and push their own weird agenda, not because they genuinely want a discussion/better understanding of the matter.
I don’t agree it’s entirely reasonable, for the reasons I’ve given a number of times already now.
It doesn’t really matter whether you think it’s relevant to the comic or not, because we’re having this discussion in the year 2022 about what the term “sealioning” means now, and pointing out that, on its face, the comic doesn’t actually represent the concept as we understand it.
Even back at the height of gamergate, everyone - including the gamergaters themselves - knew for the most part that they weren’t being genuinely sincere. The early stuff about “ethics in games journalism” (and there was, IMO, a kernel of validity there) was very quickly done away with in favour of the awful shitshow it became.
Basically, I suggest the comic here is a victim of the Death Of The Author concept - regardless of what the author intended to say, on its own merits (ie, without the “gamergate” context, which is ancient history to most people now) it’s a comic about Entity A overhearing Entities B & C talking shit about them in public for no reason, asking quite reasonably for an explanation, getting an eye-roll in response, pressing the issue further politely, still being denied any answer at all relating to the question, and then (which is where the humour comes in) following them into their home and pestering them in unlikely locations like their bedroom and the breakfast table.
It’s a classic “Taking something too far” joke. There is no way for the reader to know why the woman doesn’t like sealions. Sealions are not something most people have negative feelings towards IRL. There was, at the time, no memetic or cultural negative baggage attached to sealions. That’s why we, as readers, aren’t assuming insincerity on the sealion’s part - there’s no reason, externally or within the comic - to indicate we should, and metagaming it to say “Oh, it’s actually about gamergate” still doesn’t change the fact that even back then, the insincerity was a part of that behaviour and it’s not being demonstrated in the comic.
…if you choose not to respond to me any further in this thread that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do. If you were to start a pit thread about me, call me a bunch of names, then decide not to return to the thread: that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do. Sometimes you just gotta rant.
Nope. Many of them don’t think this at all. They actually believe that the planes didn’t hit the tower. That Z0e Quinn slept with a reporter to get positive coverage of their game. That white people are the supreme race.
This doesn’t mean that every sealion believes everything they say. But there is a line between sealioning and sealion trolling. They both aren’t necessarily the same thing.
This isn’t correct. Many were (and still are) entirely sincere.
I think the people that have chosen to take the comic literally are the ones that have “taken it too far.”
The thing is, we’ve had a proper discussion here. We might not agree with each other on this issue at all, but we’ve both articulated our viewpoints instead of just rolling our eyes at the other person and shouting “Go Away!” straight off the bat.
Deciding we’re not going to agree, we’ve reached a conversational impasse, and further discussion is unlikely to be productive is a totally different kettle of fish to never having the discussion in the first place.
…irrelevant.
I’ve got agency here. I have chosen to follow the rules of the board and to respond in a manner that won’t draw rebuke in this particular forum.
But I could have chosen to respond differently. I could have told you to “go away” and drawn a warning. Or I could have started a pit thread titled “Go Away” for the explicit purpose of telling you to go away. Or I could have decided to completely ignore you.
And if I had chosen to completely ignore you, that would have been an entirely reasonable thing for me to do. What wouldn’t be reasonable would be for you to follow me around the message board, demanding I tell you why I have chosen to ignore you.
It’s really not, and I am disappointed you don’t seem to understand that.
…the fact we are having a conversation that follows the rules of ATMB isn’t relevant to whether or not it is reasonable for me to decide not to engage with you.
My position is that you do not owe a random person on the internet an explanation for your opinion. That people have zero obligation to engage with anyone. That merely refusing to provide any explanation doesn’t mean you are part of the problem.
I actually took the comic to be self contained, and that she (eta: just looked at the comic for the first time in years, I think it’s actually a “he”) doesn’t like sealions for exactly the behavior the sealion in the strip is demonstrating.
My understanding of the comic, the first time I saw it and when I hadn’t realized that this comic was about Gamergate, was that it clearly answers what is objectionable about sea lions: the behavior they exhibit when you disgaree with them. This is the only light in which the lines “don’t say that out loud” and “now you’ve done it” make sense.
Thank you!!! I have been reading through this thread in complete bewilderment, wondering if I was really the only person to whom that has always seemed like the obvious interpretation of the comic.
I mean, that’s why it’s funny: random person expresses what appears to be completely arbitrary and gratuitous negative opinion about sealions, and sealion immediately pops up and incessantly harasses her about it while pretending to seek a sincere consensual discussion. Aha, so that’s why she doesn’t like sealions! 
This was completely insincere. There might be legitimate issues to discuss under that heading, but it was 100 percent irrelevant to their choices of targets for harassment. It was a bogus pretense.