…I didn’t accuse Riemann or sealioning because they weren’t sealioning. If I thought that this was what they were doing: then I would have said that. I haven’t held back in the past. I was being asked to a case for something that I hadn’t asserted. Over and over and over again. I said that it was “starting to get extremely meta.” Because that was exactly what it was starting to look like. But I didn’t call anyone a sealion.
And the counter to that is all the people who have said they didn’t understand it from the comic alone, including me.
If some people get it and some people don’t, that’s a pretty good indication that the comic was not clear. It only worked for people who had the right context and knowledge.
And, again, I don’t think it has to be. The author wasn’t coining a term. He wasn’t writing to a wider audience. He was making a comic that would be relatable to an audience already familiar with the tactic he was depicting.
It just isn’t as clear to people who lacked that context. They need additional explanation.
It’s as clear as it can be, considering that it’s a short comic and the concept is somewhat subtle. Sure, there will always be people who for one reason or another don’t get it – it happens to everyone, especially when authors pride themselves on semi-obscure “inside” jokes, a staple of xkcd and SMBC (Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal) as well.
This doesn’t mean the comic is bad or “ineffective”; it’s often as effective as it can be considering that it intrinsically assumes some prior knowledge (in this case, about the nature of internet trolling). Indeed, the subtlety is often the joke, and the effectiveness of this one is demonstrated by the fact that a great many people do get it. It didn’t become as popular as it is by being mysteriously opaque. The author’s clarification, incidentally, is entirely directed to those who thought the woman was being “bigoted”, which is something else that you misinterpreted and that probably added to your confusion.
What I’m rejecting is the claim that it’s not a good representation of sea-lioning because it fails to display some of the essential traits, like insincerity. I maintain that it does. The insincerity is implicit in the fact that the character portrayed by the sea lion metaphor is persistent beyond all reason in its pestering, and is clearly more interested in being annoying than in actually getting any of its pesky questions answered. This behaviour is clearly anticipated by the “now you’ve done it!” comment.
OK, I tried to resolve the dispute without taking sides and it failed so I may as well turn my card over now:
I’m with Riemann, BigT and others: I don’t think the comic in itself is that clear in the phenomenon it is outlining (which again, is fine, it’s just a comic), and I don’t think “overly-persistent” is a synonym for “insincere”.
Anyone can say what they want about Banquet_Bear, but BB isn’t a person to play coy or hide behind euphemisms.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But are you also including me in your reference upthread to “a couple of people are being disingenuous”? Because I vehemently reject that accusation.
I’m defending the sea lion comic because it’s been one of my favourite Wondermark comics since long before it became a popular internet trope. I’d love to have a framed print of it. When a mod here put an annoying poster on notice for “sea-lioning”, as I noted upthread, I was both grateful and impressed.
To be honest I don’t remember which people and posts I had in mind when I wrote that. So let’s just say I take it back. I don’t want to make this too adversarial anyway.
It’s a good, and funny comic. I don’t think you should take it as a criticism that the original strip is not the best way to explain what “sealioning” now typically means.
I would say, I like the comic. It was absurd, it was funny in much the same way the Far Side was often funny, with a surreal premise played straight.
And I liked that it portrayed a form of behavior that is unfortunately common now in online communities, and I liked that it was able to give a name to it. Much the way that the Monty Python sketch about the diner that served Spam in everything inspired the term “spam” for unwanted bulk messages.
For those reasons, I find it laudable. I don’t think it’s the perfect way to demonstrate what sealioning is, and it has been done better since then. But whatever, criticizing it that way is like griping about the Wright Brothers not having the best aircraft. The prototype is never perfect.
I think the comic is useful for showing the origin of the term, and (subjectively speaking) is entertaining. But it’s not the best tool for explaining what the term is and what it means.
I’m going to quibble, brace yourself.
This depends largely on the target audience. Only a comic meant to be read by a wide audience should probably only stick to things most people know, i.e. common knowledge. However, if I were to make hypothetical comic that only regular SDMB readers would ‘get’, that doesn’t mean it cannot therefore be a effective comic if in fact most or nearly all people here found it funny. Other examples can be found in places like r/ProgrammerHumor on Reddit where I think there are plenty of good and effective jokes that few people except those with knowledge of computer programming would understand.
P.S. I will say though, is that the sea lion comic depicts actual harassment and trespassing with fragrant violations of privacy and personal space, which I think does not exist as an element on pretty much anyone’s mind when they think of a person who is sealioning. For this fact alone the comic does not 100% accurately represent what sealioning is, if taken at face value. I’m not sure, but I think sealions often don’t (or at least didn’t) get banned for sealioning in online message boards, but the sealion in the comic should at least be in jail for constantly trespassing in someone’s private home. This is a reason why the comic is not a perfect analogy for actual sealioning that happens online.
This raises the qestion: Why don’t the two people call the cops on the sealion? Or maybe animal control (heh)? Are the authorities powerless to stop the menace of annoying sealions constantly asking questions and not leaving people alone? What gives? We may never know.
I disagree that it applies on the SDMB. If you make a claim, and you are asked for a cite or a clarification, you have an obligation to respond. The obligation is by courtesy , not sent down in stone, true.
And if we really want to dissect the cartoon (which is quite good, btw, so we are going far, far down the rabbit hole), then if the woman knows a sealion will intrude like that if you mention you hate them, then why on earth did she say it?
Correct. But it is a funny way and the concept comes across for most. I will defend the comic, but as the “trope starter” not the best example of the meme.
Exactly.
A similar example is “oxymoron” where a common example is “military intelligence” whereupon a neophyte would assume it means a joking contraction. not a real one.
To play Devil’s advocate, maybe she was unaware that a sealion might overhear her. She may have assumed that there would be none around, but her gentleman companion clearly knew otherwise, hence his immediate alarm.
…no you don’t have an obligation to respond. You don’t have an obligation to even read anyone else’s post, let alone reply to it.
We can see this playing out right now in the Depp/Heard defamation case. If you so much as hint that you support Heard on Twitter or TikTok you will probably get flooded by Depp supporters passionately and repeatedly telling you that “you are wrong, and you support men getting domestically abused.”
If I were to say “I support Amber Heard” the reason I said that would be because I support Amber Heard. And if I were to say that on Twitter, it is very likely a sealion will intrude.
So should I not say that I publicly support Amber Heard, because saying that would mean that I would attract the attention of the sealions?
We’ve spent a lot of time debating the definition of sealioning here, but we are overlooking the intent. Here on the boards it is a relatively mild irritant, because the behaviour is quickly recognizable, because these boards are strongly moderated, because sealions are unable to co-ordinate.
But in other spaces, like Twitter or Facebook or many Comments sections, sealioning is used as a weapon to silence people. It’s much easier to “just say nothing” than it is to have to deal with a hundred people brigading your account. It’s often used as a tool of harassment: and it’s an effective one.
So why say something that might attract the attention of the sealions?
Because sometimes things just have to be said.
I would change if I could, @Cervaise. I want more than anything to be liked and understood and accepted. But there is no magic wand to rewire my brain. We can only do our best with what we have.
I think the suggestion that it comes across accurately for most people is in dispute. There are a lot of people in this thread that said it didn’t, including me, and I don’t like to think of myself as particularly stupid. 
Wow! That’s almost like what Trans people describe their experience like! I sure hope this has given you more empathy for their plight.
Ooo, snap.
Goddamnit, where the hell is that +1 button?
Moderating:
Hey, let’s not hijack this thread with discussion of trans issues, please. I’ll ask everyone to drop that.
If a disabled person is acting in bad faith and trolling, they should be called out on it. Disabilities are not an asshole license. The comic isn’t attacking sealions for being sealions–I mean who the hell would do that?–but using them as a metaphor for a certain kind of troll.