IME it doesn’t actually go as it is depicted in the cartoon. I can see that it could go like that, and on the basis that everything that can happen has happened at some time, it probably has happened like in the cartoon at some time, but I don’t think it’s how it usually happens.
IME what actually happens is this; the Opinionated makes a strong statement about something, often containing at least quasi-factual assertions, and some degree of alleged factual justification. The Sea-Lion then challenges the assertions and the facts. The Opinionated doesn’t let go but instead continues to try to assert. The Sea-lion continues to challenge. Things go badly for the Opinionated. Finally, feeling cornered, they whine about being harassed, and say they were only stating their opinion, which is sacrosanct.
If you have some unsupported opinion, then that’s fine but make that clear. Don’t make it sound like your opinion is some sort of objective fact. If you want to gain rhetorical advantage by asserting your opinion as objective fact then fuck you when you get called on your nonsense and don’t whine about how it was only ever your opinion. If that’s all it was, then be a bit humble and say so from the beginning and you won’t get into this shit.
If you make quasi-factual assertions, then they are open to challenge, get over it or don’t make the assertions.
if you cite facts in justification of your opinion, then they are open to challenge, get over it or don’t make the assertions
if your opinion can’t be justified other than on the basis of how you feel, then fine. Say that and shut up, instead of engaging in a lame fight then complaining someone hit you.
Examples I have experienced of this sort of thing:
a quasi-factual assertion; someone saying a highly acclaimed technical virtuoso was a “bad” guitarist. You don’t like what they play? Fine. But they are not a “bad” guitarist when they have amazing technical ability that a vast number of people appreciate.
a factual justification; someone saying all the books in a certain series were the same. Turned out they *hadn’t even read * the books. Still got snippy with me for being so obnoxious as to suggest their justification was baseless. You don’t like the books? Fine, but don’t talk crap.
One way to challenge someone’s opinion without coming across as harassing is simply to state that you disagree. You’re not demanding anything. Example:
“So-and-so is a bad guitarist.”
“I don’t think he’s a bad guitarist. I can’t think of any songs where his playing sounded bad to me.”
Now the other person could just let the disagreement stand, but more likely they’ll volunteer examples in order to try to convince you. So you’ve gotten them to back up their opinion without even asking, let alone grilling them.
The second part (“I can’t think of any songs …”) is what draws him to elaborate. It’s a little hook to pull him in. He’ll see it as an opportunity to make you look stupid.
I think there’s some difference between “I don’t like X” and “I don’t like X because sometimes they do Y to me”. The first is solely your opinion, the second injects some supposedly factual information into the mix. If that information is negative about a group, it stands to reason that someone might ask for supporting information.
Setting aside the GG debate, if I said “I don’t like sea lions because sometimes they bite me”, I’m not just saying that I don’t like sea lions but also telling people that sea lions bite me (and may bite you). At that point, it’s useful to know if I have ever actually been bitten and the circumstances (well, I was pulling its whiskers and taking away its fish…).
Granted, I still agree that if you’re done talking about sea lions at that point then I don’t have any right to follow you around the internet demanding proof of sea lions bites. I just don’t think it’s unreasonable to bring it up in direct response to the claim.
Question - Suppose a well-known TV personality claims he will undergo waterboarding in order to prove that it isn’t really torture. He never does, and people start bringing it up (in responses to his Twitter tweets, on comments sections on articles he writes, in person when he’s giving a talk, etc.) asking when he plans to follow through. Is this “sea-lioning”? Regardless of the answer, is it bad to do this?
Similar example - a famous self-proclaimed psychic promises on the air to take the Million Dollar Challenge. She never actually does, though, and people take to responding to her tweets, articles, appearances, etc. - asking when she plans to follow through. Is this “sea-lioning”? Regardless of the answer, is it bad to do this?
The reason I use these examples is because it appears that they fit the term, but I could easily see some members of this board supporting (at least to some extent) putting pressure on those individuals in order to get them to address an issue or topic they are trying to avoid.
I actually wouldn’t call this sea-lioning unless the tweets or articles are about the same subject, because there is no pretense of wanting more information or debate. Depending on the severity it might be harassment, cyberstalking or merely jerkish behavior.
I would claim that it is bad to do unless it is relevant to the subject. “You claim that you will undergo waterboarding to prove it is not torture, but you claimed that years ago and never followed through,” is totally relevant. “You claim that low inflation hurts the middle class, but you claimed that you would undergo waterboarding years ago and never followed through,” is out of line.
The psychic one is tougher- every prediction hinges on her credibility, and I’d be hard pressed to avoid asking “what is the difference between this prediction and your prediction that you would take the challenge?” But it’s probably still bad.
I don’t see the waterboarding type thing fitting the OP at all. You’re not pseudo-politely asking for elaboration (to the point of harassment) so you can make an argument, you’re just saying “You didn’t do this when you say you would!”
This term may be a good way to describe conversations I have with a family member. We’ll have normal conversations about topics of the day and often they get bogged down with minutiae about what words mean, clarifying tone, or other BS that makes the conversation tedious.
The same thing can happen on this board where there will be cite requests or JAQ about idiotic things. I typically exercise restraint and ignore it. For example, if we used the OP as a sample:
Why would you think that?
What do you mean by accountability? What should be the consequence of this type of behavior?
If I see a high ratio of questions to statements, it makes me think they are engaging in this type of behavior.
I was thinking it fit the general framework of “bringing up a topic that is not directly related to the topic at hand, which the person you’re bringing it up to doesn’t want to talk about”. You’re right though. It’s not usually pseudo-polite, and it isn’t asking for elaboration or evidence. I’ll withdraw this example.
Perhaps a better example: A politician is making a series of short stops in many locations, meeting with the public to discuss various topics. At one stop, focusing on “values and faith”, he talks to a church group and makes specific negative claims about evolution. At many of his later stops, he is asked by one or more members of the public to back up his claims about the falsity of evolution. They do this even if the official topic of the stop is to discuss small business or immigration or the capital gains tax rate or whatever. The politician continually avoids discussing his previous claims. (If you want, replace “evolution” with “climate change”.)
My knee-jerk response would be to side with those pressing the issue. People with a public presence should be held accountable for spewing nonsense. There shouldn’t be any safe spaces to promote pseudo-science or other bullshit to the public. But I think the key word is “public”. The more public and influential someone is, the more I think it’s okay to bring up nonsense that they previously put forth but subsequently refused to address. They don’t have to be an elected official. For example, I think Doctor Oz should be taken to task regularly for the crap he’s promoted in the past. Someone like Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, falls into this category as well in my opinion.
If that sort of thing counts as “sea-lioning”, then I am generally in favor in those circumstances. I wouldn’t want people showing up at their homes and challenging them, or stopping them on the street, or anything like that. But responding to a blog post about topic X asking them to back up their claims about topic Y is pretty easy to ignore, as is an email or a tweet. I wouldn’t consider those inherently harassing (although the language used could be).
Is that sealioning, though? The linked conversation is a little hard to follow without the context, but it seems like in a public forum like Twitter, if you’re talking about someone, and they then show up, attracted by the conversation… that’s just human nature - we like to be there when our names are mentioned. I don’t see it as evidence of harassment.
On the other hand, I suppose the questions could be in bad faith…
Well, of course! She just said so… using those exact words.
Still, I think the linked cartoon implies sealioning is a form of harassment, and I’m not sure the linked Twitter conversation fits the bill.
I know how the woman in the cartoon feels. Thats just how I feel about Jews! And yet when I simply express my opinion, people get upset. When I complain about how they control the media and the banks, people keep bugging me for “facts” and “evidence.” Sheesh! It’s just my opinion, man.
But do they follow you around all the time? Do they ask you when you’re grocery shopping, or waiting for the bus? Do they pester you without cease, and make demands for your response at times that aren’t appropriate?
You seem to be justifying bad manners on the basis of hateful opinions. It’s okay to torment racists and bigots, right? Now, I’d like you to explain this a little further: why do you feel bigots don’t have the right to common courtesy?
I’ll be asking you this in Cafe Society and General Questions threads that have nothing to do with this subject.
The strip was funny. As a meme though it’s pretty useless as when sea lioning is inappropriate it never happens and when it does happen it’s not inappropriate. Which may explain why it never caught on.
I think the guy was saying in a polite manner, “Point out the parts of my blog post where I was white knighting.” The blog post was chock full of softeners and hedges so I think he was sincere. More generally, unsubstantiated allegations aren’t especially helpful to those of good will. If the guy knew how he was white knighting, he might curb that behavior. This was an example alleging sea lioning when the criticized behavior was wholly acceptable.
I think though that while sea lioning is a useless meme, there are probably a number of things similar to it that are problematic. The sort of questioning that Bone depicts is simple harrassment: the questions aren’t sincere.
That said, there are ideas that simply do not survive scrutiny. And it is fair to attack them via questioning. (Or to question them via questioning.) Assuming that the context is appropriate of course.
OTOH2, nolonger lurking puts his finger on a related problem in post 12: certain forms of rhetoric put an unbalanced and unfair burden on the discussants. I say that those making claims (especially the OP) have a disproportionate burden to support their case. But there must be limits to that in a message board context. I’ll add that empty assertions can be another form of imbalance. There’s a technique I call “Kangaroo Points”. When an assertion is critiqued, the defender simply makes another assertion, rather than addressing their original claim. Then another. And then sometimes they go full circle. It’s more of a RL thing than a SDMB phenomenon though.
…you are completely missing the point. Sea-lioning refers to a specific kind of behaviour: I don’t think that any of your examples and the examples given by other people fit that specific criteria.
Go back to the original cartoon, replace “marine mammals” with “gamers” and replace “sea lion” with “gamergaters.” Now take that sea-lion and multiply it by 100.
That is what sea-lioning is. The conversation in the cartoon has literally played out in real life. It was the systematic blockading of twitter feeds/email accounts/youtube comments by people “just asking questions” and feigning politeness. They literally deny gamergate is responsible for any abuse or threats, demand evidence of abuse and when presented with evidence claim that it is either faked, the responsibility of “third party trolls” or if it didn’t include the hashtag then it “didn’t come from them.”
It is difficult to do what you are trying to do (frame this outside the perspective of gamergate) because sea-lioning really is all about gamergate. It is something you really need to see first hand to really get an understanding of it.
For a real life example, I support Randi Harper on Patreon. Last month someone hacked Patreon, my email got leaked and my support for her got made public, and I ended up with emails like this in my inbox:
(All identifying information removed)
If you are getting sea-lioned you are getting hundreds of these sorts of messages a day. It comes in the form of emails/tweets/private messages: it is a literal gish-gallop of crap that clogs up your real life. This is really scary shit. You can see that this guy threatened to go to my employer (but I’m self employed ha ha!).
This isn’t about the Opinionated “making strong statements” and the Sea-Lion “challenging those assertions”. This is about a group of people who are so obsessed with “being right” that it spills over from the internet and hits you in real life. Which is why the Sea-Lion follows them around, into their house, into their bedroom, and joins them for breakfast. Read this blog post by Zoe Quinn. Sea-lioning was only part of the harassment that Quinn has had to put up with over the last year, and probably the easiest to deal with, but it was the most visible. Imagine not being able to say a word about anything online without people challenging you on it en masse, over and over again. Then you might be able to really understand what this whole thing is actually about.
)