# Sealioning **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 16, 2019, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837 "2019-10-16T10:36:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/281 "2019-10-22T14:51:38Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Thank you for catching my drift. Losers don’t usually get to brainwash the winners with their stories… except for slavery and America. Slavers slaughtered in the Alamo are lionized and the anti-slavery Mexicans denigrated. Lionized? Slavery supporters should be sealionized. Please cite authorities showing slavery is good for the slaves. Define “happy slaves”. If slavery is good, you wouldn’t mind being enslaved, right? I’d say “you’re welcome” but honestly your point is not a complicated one, which is why I have such a hard time believing that people who just don’t “get it” (not people who disagree, people who are just clueless) are acting in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/282 "2019-10-22T15:16:54Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I think you are right. I misinterpreted her post. But how do you feel about my underlying point? The person who drops a question without context or willingness to contribute their own idea derails the discussion; they turn it into a trial of the other person’s debating skills. IME, the person who says “How does this meet the federal definition of treason?” isn’t interested in the answer. If I back off and say 'ok, not techically treason, but betrayal", they will chalk that up as a “point”, not respond in any way, and move on to the next potential place they can score a point. It’s toxic to discussion, and entertaining that model shortly derails the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/283 "2019-10-22T19:32:04Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I would wear red. I have worn red. I admit bias towards the color blue. So? Oh, now you change your tune, that you are called out on your bias. > [@](#): > > Then why not just use “betrayal” instead of “treason”? Does using the word “treason” enhance your argument in any way? Or does it simply inject an emotional facet into your argument? Does your semantic nitpicking about word choice enhance your argument in any way? Or is it simply to win points on the internet? If you display far more concern about word choice than about the post that those words appear in, then you are not here for the same reasons that I am. > [@](#): > > Not really. I don’t expect people to justify their opinion to my satisfaction. Just enough so I can understand where they are getting their opinion. I rarely, if ever, denigrate someone for their opinion, unless it is just utterly ridiculous like “Don’t talk to women at work so you don’t face a harassment charge” or similar. So, you do not denigrate someone for their opinion, unless you judge that their opinion is ridiculous? > [@](#): > > Sorry, it’s my opinion, and I don’t have to provide cites. You aren’t sealioning here are you? It is only your opinion that “a poster would say “Of course it’s treason you Trump lover!” because now it seems like we are moving more toward a “Just agree with me or else I will call you a sealioning troll!” type of subject.”, not a guess? > [@](#): > > Just use “betray” then and it will avoid all the problems associated with the word “treason”. Just get over the fact that someone used a word in a way that you don’t like, and that also avoids all the problems with the word “treason”. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with me “liking it”. There is literally no structure that can be built to hold asylum seekers that doesn’t meet your definition of concentration camp. And your point is? Complaining about us using accurate terms to describe what is going on is only a distraction from what is going on. If you “win” the argument by exhausting the patience of your debate opponents, and they finally say, “Fine, I’ll not call it a concentration camp anymore,” what have you won? > [@](#): > > I still don’t understand why people hold so dearly to certain words that others reject. I don’t understand why people do dearly reject words that others use. > [@](#): > > “What we did to the Kurds is treason!” > > “Why do you say that? What is treasonous about it?” > > “OK. What we did to the Kurds is a great betrayal!” > > “Yeah. I agree” > > Seems pretty simple to me. Yeah, except that you get hung up on people using words in a way that you disapprove of, and refuse to allow the conversation to go on until they have justified it to your satisfaction. Do you deny that one of the dictionary [definitions of treason](https://www.google.com/search?q=treason&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS524US524&oq=treason&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) is betrayal? If so, take your fight up with webster, not with the poster. If not, then fucking let it go, as they did not use the word incorrectly, just not the way that you wanted them to use it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/284 "2019-10-22T20:33:47Z")
Regarding the original Wondermark cartoon, I’ve always found the last line to be the most significant. The sea lion has been told to go away and at the end the sea lion says: “Very well. We shall resume in an hour.” I take this to clearly mean the sea lion has no real interest in a discussion and doesn’t care in the least if the other person wants to continue it or not, it’s a petty power move. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/285 "2019-10-22T21:41:26Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > But how do you feel about my underlying point? The person who drops a question without context or willingness to contribute their own idea derails the discussion; they turn it into a trial of the other person’s debating skills. IME, the person who says “How does this meet the federal definition of treason?” isn’t interested in the answer. If I back off and say 'ok, not techically treason, but betrayal", they will chalk that up as a “point”, not respond in any way, and move on to the next potential place they can score a point. It’s toxic to discussion, and entertaining that model shortly derails the whole thing. I don’t see it as generally problematic. In threads in forums like elections or great debates I sort of expect a certain percentage of clarifying posts. There is actually more annoying forms of nitpicking and pedantic behavior than the occasional asking of clarification of a very loaded term. But if you do feel that it’s problematic you have zero obligation to respond. If you find a poster obnoxious, dishonest, insulting, or think he/she smells funny you have no obligation to respond. There is behavior I think distracts from threads such as constantly reminding the world how no thread is worthwhile as long as the orange menace is terrorizing the multiverse. Apparently it’s fine because it’s far more prevalent than so-called sealioning. I think the problem is some people get annoyed when the conversation is not going the direction they’d like because it’s focused on details but that’s sort of the nature of conversation in general is it not? If you are conversing in a relatively public place you just need strategies to deal with a certain bit of noise. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/286 "2019-10-22T21:49:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Regarding the original Wondermark cartoon, I’ve always found the last line to be the most significant. The sea lion has been told to go away and at the end the sea lion says: “Very well. We shall resume in an hour.” I take this to clearly mean the sea lion has no real interest in a discussion and doesn’t care in the least if the other person wants to continue it or not, it’s a petty power move. Why isn’t it just that he is dogged yet polite? He’s going to back off long enough to let her eat breakfast, but he’s not going to drop the matter. Every attempt to cite supposed “great examples” of sealioning misses or purposely evades the fact that in the cartoon the sea lion is understandably miffed by a personal shot against him and his kind. It’s not just some abstract issue that he’s JAQing about. If that’s not the emphasis intended by the author, he should have written a different comic strip. If a polite but persistent defense of oneself is not what users of the term “sealioning” have in mind, they should choose a different term. For example, the one I just used earlier in this paragraph: “JAQing”. Or Manda Jo’s version, “JAQing off”. > [@Derleth](#): > > God’s dead, baby. God’s dead. > > Yes, I get that sealioning has a meaning now and it’s derived from the cartoon. However, I can’t let a negation of Death Of The Author slip by. The meaning the word has is due to common usage, not Malki telling us what his cartoon means. Malki gets to have an opinion on that, but it isn’t the final one, any more than Homer gets to have the last word on why Odysseus was like that. This. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/287 "2019-10-22T22:27:35Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > \*I think “JAQing off” is a much better term than “sealioning”. It perfectly captures the self-indulgent nature of the behavior. I agree. > [@Derleth](#): > > The way I’ve always heard JAQing Off used goes more like this: > > “Why did all the Jews pull their money out of the Twin Towers before 9/11? Why didn’t anyone shoot down the passenger planes before they could hit the buildings? Why did Bush stay with the kids instead of going out there and doing something? Why didn’t Bush act more shocked? Why wasn’t there a plane-shaped hole in the Pentagon? Why did we only get pieces instead of whole remains?” See now, I think that’s more of a Gish Gallop than JAQing off:) Sealioning is obviously a tricky one, and sometimes language just does odd things. Referring back to what the sealion cartoon depicts can’t just be dismissed as the etymological fallacy, because it’s all so recent. When we can look at threads just a few years ago that talk about people observing the verbing of sealion _from the cartoon_ in real time, it’s quite surprising that consensus meaning doesn’t actually appear to correlate that well with what we see in the cartoon, even after the cartoonist tries to explain it. I think Banquet Bear’s observation that he thinks everyone who looked at the cartoon at the time was interpreting it strongly in the light of goobergate is important. With that context apparently they inferred things about what the sealion represented that aren’t objectively present in the cartoon. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/288 "2019-10-22T22:35:04Z")
I take it “goobergate” is a snarky reference to gamergate. Has that become a widespread thing or just something BB and a few others here say? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/289 "2019-10-22T23:06:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I take it “goobergate” is a snarky reference to gamergate. Has that become a widespread thing or just something BB and a few others here say? …I use goobergate instead of the other word because sometimes the mere mention of the word will bring an onslaught of gaters to defend "ethics in games journalism’. I also mask Z$e Quinn’s name and anything else that might draw their attention. Admittedly it isn’t much of a problem on a well-moderated board like this. But best not to tempt fate. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/290 "2019-10-23T00:41:07Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Why isn’t it just that he is dogged yet polite? He’s going to back off long enough to let her eat breakfast, but he’s not going to drop the matter. Why, you’re entirely right and he’s clearly the most astonishingly generous sea lion in history and well deserving of a Nobel Prize. Or he’s a jerk who trying to exploit a small amount of conversational leverage in bad faith. She should get her metaphorical harpoon ready. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/291 "2019-10-23T00:42:30Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I also mask Z$e Quinn’s name and anything else that might draw their attention. I was getting curious about that, truth be told. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/292 "2019-10-23T02:10:12Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > If someone is sincerely interested in discussion, they don’t use the JAQing off\* structure, they just talk: > > “What we did to the Kurds is treason!” > > “I’m uncomfortable with the term “treason” there; it has a pretty specific legal definition and I don’t see it. But it was certainly betrayal!” This is a great post. I agree. I’ll work to do this more in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/293 "2019-10-23T02:17:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Oh, now you change your tune, that you are called out on your bias Not a question, I don’t have to answer. > [@](#): > > Does your semantic nitpicking about word choice enhance your argument in any way? Or is it simply to win points on the internet? I have no argument. I simply want to know what you mean. I don’t care about “winning points on the Internet” since that is meaningless and affects me as much as a sports team winning a game. > [@](#): > > So, you do not denigrate someone for their opinion, unless you judge that their opinion is ridiculous? I try not to denigrate someone’s opinion if I ask for it. If they give unasked for opinions that I consider moronic, then I do judge that. Seems bad form to ask for an opinion and then make fun of it. I try not to do that. > [@](#): > > And your point is? Complaining about us using accurate terms to describe what is going on is only a distraction from what is going on. If you “win” the argument by exhausting the patience of your debate opponents, and they finally say, “Fine, I’ll not call it a concentration camp anymore,” what have you won? I’m not interested in “winning an argument” I’m interested in what people on this board post, and why they post it. > [@](#): > > Do you deny that one of the dictionary [definitions of treason](https://www.google.com/search?q=treason&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS524US524&oq=treason&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) is betrayal? If so, take your fight up with webster, not with the poster. If not, then fucking let it go, as they did not use the word incorrectly, just not the way that you wanted them to use it. No, I don’t deny it. I feel that President Obama was an egregious President. Do you agree or disagree? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/294 "2019-10-23T02:46:14Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > No, I don’t deny it. I feel that President Obama was an egregious President. Do you agree or disagree? Agree or disagree that Obama was an egregious president, or agree or disagree that you feel he was? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/295 "2019-10-23T02:51:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Agree or disagree that Obama was an egregious president, or agree or disagree that you feel he was? Fair point. Do you think Obama was an egregious President? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/296 "2019-10-23T03:04:50Z")
Can a person be described as egregious? That’s not a familiar usage to me. I tend to think it’s used to describe actions, or maybe I’d say he’s an “egregiously bad” president. This random page of sentence examples I found supports that: > **[How to Use Egregious in a Sentence? Definition,Meaning with Examples](https://sentencehouse.com/egregious/)** > > How to use Egregious in a sentence:- Sentence examples of Egregious, Egregiously and Egregiousness. Egregious Definition and Meaning with Examples Egregious (adjective) means shocking or bad. It su… But I’m open to being convinced otherwise. (Um, this is honestly a real question, by the way, not a sealion or a JAQ!) ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/297 "2019-10-23T03:09:44Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Can a person be described as egregious? That’s not a familiar usage to me. I tend to think it’s used to describe actions. This random page of sentence examples I found supports that: > > [https://sentencehouse.com/egregious/](https://sentencehouse.com/egregious/) > > But I’m open to being convinced otherwise. > > (Um, this is honestly a real question, by the way, not a sealion or a JAQ!) Sorry, asking what I mean by “egregious” is sealioning. You should say “I’m uncomfortable with the term “egregious” there; it has a pretty specific definition and I don’t see it” ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/298 "2019-10-23T03:20:03Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sorry, asking what I mean by “egregious” is sealioning. > > You should say “I’m uncomfortable with the term “egregious” there; it has a pretty specific definition and I don’t see it” Can I just not be polite instead, that would be easier? Dammit, I shouldn’t have _asked_, should I. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/299 "2019-10-23T03:24:01Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Dammit, I shouldn’t have _asked_, should I. Not putting a question mark after a question doesn’t negate the fact that it’s a question. Just sayin’ ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2019, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/300 "2019-10-23T03:33:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Not putting a question mark after a question doesn’t negate the fact that it’s a question. But it can turn it into a rhetorical question, can’t it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837.md?page=16)