Hey, can someone really explain sealioning to me? I’ve now seen it referenced by several posters and several moderators, and I’ve looked up the original comic, but I don’t see how it applies to the posts here where it’s referenced.
I’m putting this in the Pit because accusations of sealioning are accusations of trolling, and I’m looking for examples and an explanation of how it fits. The posters here who are accused of it don’t seem to be taking the position of the sea lion in the comic – they aren’t inviting people to debate, they’re just debating in bad faith. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an example that’s displayed in the original comic, but maybe I’m missing some subtlety.
I too was unfamiliar with the term until a mod here told HD to knock it off. I looked up the term, and fuck me, they could have named it Hurricane Ditka’ing.
Sea-lioning: "Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”.
I get that HD, for example, argues in bad faith, and moves goal posts relentlessly, but I don’t see the sea lion aspect. I see the subject changing and distractions, but not what’s described in that Wiki excerpt.
Well, HD was warned for it, but I’m my phone and searching for it will be a huge pain. So, later today? Unless someone jumps in with the cites for me (please).
Velocity just referenced it in one of the elections threads - maybe the question of O’Rourke purposely sabotaging the Dems?
Could you explain in more detail? I’m open-minded about what his comment meant, but I’ve never known Ravenman to joke around about something like that, I’d find it more believable if you could provided a few examples of him using this type of humor in the past.
Thanks everyone for helping me understand the concept, eventually. OK, I honestly still don’t see it in action on this board, from what I remember, this thread notwithstanding. I’ll look more closely, but if someone could actually provide some examples (no joke), I’m interested.
All kidding aside, on this board the key things to pay attention to are:
Overuse of asking for cites,
Fixation on the use of a particular word, such as asking for precise definitions and then quibbling with them,
If someone provides ten points in favor of an idea or whatever, proceeding to nitpick the hell out of one in order to “disprove” the other nine,
Altering the basics of the debate or moving the goalposts of a standard of proof, forcing others to essentially go back to square one,
An extreme focus on the process of a debate, rather than the main point (e.g., if someone says the sky is blue, the troll/sealioner will focus discussion individually/serially on the words, meaning, and standard of proof for “sky,” “is,” and “blue” rather than coming out with a competing argument that the sky is a different color.
This is definitely a phenomenon that is hard to see at first because it is subtle, but once you notice it, it becomes obvious. One question to keep in mind is, “Is this poster just making others do a lot of work/citing/arguing without contributing a similar degree of effort?”
Ah, that’s the stuff. Seems like Magiver is pretty guilty of it in the Kurds thread as well, although maybe that’s straight up moving goalposts. And, does doorhinge debate any other way?
D’Anconia clearly believes that Trump is not a criminal. That’s fine, and I doubt anyone would say that she is trying to sealion/troll if she said something like, “This goes to far, innocent until proven guilty, etc.” But rather than offer arguments and evidence that Trump is NOT immoral and criminal, she picks out one term, redefines debate onto the meaning of criminal, and basically throws the whole burden of debate onto the one poster to justify an argument that D’Anconia clearly doesn’t have an open mind to, and has no intention of putting in any effort to establish a reasoned counter-argument, much less actually bother to state a contrary opinion.
Note also in that thread that D’Anconia never returns with another post, and the moderators actually defend the troll in question, leading me to the conclusion that some mods are equally clueless about sealioning, or just don’t care.
In this thread he claims that the Kurds are not being murdered because the background stock footage used in one report was clearly used in error. He declines to consider that there may be other evidence or, more fundamentally, that the wrong choice of background footage doesn’t negate what happened. This is when I began to understand sealioning.
In the same way (and ever so politely as I have learned sea lions usually are) in the Trump Impeachment thread he brings up the fact that it took Turkey something like 15 years to receive their first F-35 from the US in order to imply that the US was deliberately slowing the delivery to force Turkey’s/Erdogan’s hand (implying in turn that the same was being done legitimately with Ukraine). When it was pointed out that even the US military itself didn’t take meaningful delivery of the plane for a similar amount of time, he responds by, well, by not.
As has been said, when given ten cites that counter his narrative or ‘facts’, he’ll try to pick apart one but ignore the other nine, and somehow still claim that he’s gotcha.
It is clear that he has no interest in sincere discussion. His mind is made up. He may or may not be aware of what he’s doing but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. He has shown he is incapable of productive discourse.
In real life and (repeatedly) on this board, when confronted with new information, or when presented with a new perspective, I may change my mind. HD never.
Like anything else cool or funny that most people don’t know about, dimwitted wannabes will overextend the use of a term until it is basically meaningless simply so they can appear to be hip to something you aren’t hip to.
Then they will spend hours editing wikis and posting “authoritative”-seeming lists, complete with numbers, to justify their misuse of the term.
