They can. So when you say things like “This is starting to get extremely meta”, they know exactly what you meant by that.
…well: they were. As others in the thread have noted.
But I never accused anyone of sealioning.
Whatever you do, don’t read xkcd.
Any notion that I was “demanding” anyting from you derives entirely from your illusion of self importance. You asked what I thought the issues under debate were, and I summarized them in the form of a couple of questions. I can assure you that there was no implication that I intended to infringe your Constitutional right to not express your opinion.
For what it’s worth (dropping the sarcasm) when I sense that a conversation has gone to cross purposes (as it had then) I don’t find it constructive to go back and dissect prior comments that were evidently mired in mutual misunderstanding, or to argue about who might have been technically correct in what they did or didn’t say. Misunderstandings happen. Better to just start afresh and reframe what I thought we were the substantive issues under discussion and invite your opinion (if you have one). You could of course have done the same and invited me to comment if you were focused on a different issue. I was honestly mystified why taking that approach upset you so much.
…the thing is, this:
is a completely inaccurate reframing of our conversation. Just stop doing that already. Thanks in advance.
My only point: and the thing that you originally chose to quote, was:
That’s it.
And when you said this:
That was all that was need to be said. There wasn’t any need to reframe the conversation and you didn’t even tell me that you wanted to reframe the conversation, you just randomly said:
As if that had anything to do with what I had said. When I asked for clarification:
You said:
This isn’t a reframing of the conversation. It started with a non sequitur, then when I asked for clarification, you accused me of a fallacy.
You are mistaken. There was a conversation taking place among a number of people on just this issue before you joined it. You cannot ignore that context and expect that any follow-up responses to comments you make will only be restricted to some much narrower scope. Nor does quoting you carry that implication. Incorporating a quote from you in a comment can sometimes mean “you said this, but/and also here’s another point…”.
The substantive issue you’ve raised there is asking what I meant about the etymological fallacy. I’m happy to explain. Here’s the full exchange that preceded me mentioning it:
In subsequently responding by mentioning the etymological fallacy, I was noting that the meaning of a word is defined by current usage, not by its origin. The cartoon is like a reference in an etymological dictionary, not a dictionary of current usage. Although the cartoon is indisputably the etymological origin of the word, it is certainly possible (albeit a matter under contentious debate here) that the cartoon may not accurately portray the current meaning of the word.
…of course I can. You weren’t following up anything that I said. I had no idea what you were talking about. I still don’t have any idea what you were talking about.
I have zero obligations here. This is an open thread. I was responding to somebody else on a very specific point. I’m allowed to do that. If you want to quote me and use me for some tangential springboard for something else that you wanted to say, then at least have the decency to concede that this is what you were doing.
My point, which was “People have zero obligation to engage with anyone”, is not something that is dependent on the etymological origin of the word, nor is it dependent on the current meaning of the word.
It’s a point that simply stands on its own. A couple having a private conversation has no obligation to answer questions about that conversation to anyone (unless compelled to by law, of course.)
That’s it. That’s the entirety of my point. It applies to the cartoon. It applies on these message boards. It applies in real life.
And you agreed with that point. You literally said “True enough, and that’s all the comic portrays.”
I have no interest in your opinions on my conversational style.
As I’ve mentioned before, the literary criticism concept of “Death of The Author” (TLDR: What the author wants/intended the work to mean can be irrelevant; it’s entirely about how the reader interprets it) means that taking a work on face value is a valid way to approach some works.
Obviously that approach to literary criticism is itself contentious and has its flaws to, but nonetheless it is one of the potentially valid ways to look at a given work.
In this case, you’ve got the author himself acknowledging that if read on face value (which is what someone unfamiliar with the concept in 2022 is going to be doing) then yeah, it doesn’t make the point he’d hoped it would make. In fact, he even says that in retrospect, a sealion might not have been the best choice of character for the persistent questioner.
Indeed! I laughed out loud!
An effective comic requires only common knowledge, not context. But naturally I am allowed to move the goalposts of the definition of common knowledge to ensure that my assertion is always true 
I know you mentioned this concept upthread, and I meant to thank you for the reference since I hadn’t come across it before. It’s a more cogent and complete way of expressing what I was getting at by reference to the etymological fallacy.
No, he doesn’t. I’ll explain further below, but what’s happened here is that the comic got so much exposure after it turned into a popular internet trope that inevitably some people interpreted it in ways not intended.
To both of the above comments, I don’t read the author’s clarification that way at all. I note with some amusement that we’ve now gone from arguing about different interpretations of the comic to arguing about different interpretations of the author’s clarification!
When Malki says “My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip … was in any way confusing” it’s exactly like someone misunderstanding a post that I made, so that I have to clarify, and then I add “sorry if my post was unclear”. That’s not an admission that I don’t know how to write, but more of a pro forma politeness, and is not inconsistent with my privately thinking that maybe the other person doesn’t know how to read.
My contention remains that the comic succinctly describes what is meant by “sea-lioning”. The evidence for this is that we’ve had a number of conversations on this board (and there have been similar conversations elsewhere) where people were unfamiliar with the term and didn’t understand what it meant. By way of explanation, they were pointed to the comic, and then they understood. QED.
In general I don’t like labels like these – they tend to be used more by bad faith debaters.
e.g. I engage in flat earth and trumpish forums from time to time, and I am always called a “troll”. I’m sure if the the people on those forums were familiar with “sealion”, I’d be called that too.
In terms of the central debate in this thread, I do feel a couple of people are being disingenuous, but for the sake of ending this, I won’t say who.
Instead, I’ll suggest that a resolution would be just all agreeing that the comic doesn’t fully flesh out the meaning of the term “sealioning” today, even though it’s the origin, because it is merely a comic strip.
Given my experience with similar places, “troll” has become a meaningless snarl word.
Like “fake news”.
Countdown until the Sealion becomes a new Aquaman villain.
Or, to a certain extent, “racist”.
Because I have also tried to engage with white supremacists, and they will say the most racist things, but, IME, will never admit to being a racist. Instead they will try to call me a racist.
It’s just a pejorative to them.
ETA: also stuff like fascist, authoritarian etc.
‘Sealioning’ is not descriptive of the behavior of sea lions and the comic strip the term is derived from is only weakly connected to the practice. It means what it means, doesn’t matter why, but someone could have come up with a better word.
Those two statements are in contradiction. Saying the conversation about sealioning is getting meta is inherently accusing people of sealioning. Just like saying a conversation about liars is getting meta would be accusing someone of lying.
That’s what the phrase means: it is an accusation that people are doing the thing they are talking about.