# 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:** 3
**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 17, 2019, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/41 "2019-10-17T00:39:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I really can’t tell if this is meant as a brilliant example of sealioning… I don’t think so, obviously (given my reply above). I know I had the same initial impression that the cartoon was a bit odd, and only got the point later (I think) when sealioning was explained to me more explicitly. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/42 "2019-10-17T00:40:42Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > [Sealioning - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning) > > 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. Over the years I’ve seen too much of that shit. People (assholes) keep asking for cites and proof and evidence, and then they ignore it and keep blabbering the same lying bullshit as before. So, I stopped playing their game. I won’t provide cites because they will be ignored. More cites will be “asked for”. I won’t give “evidence” because it will be ignored. More “evidence” will be asked for. So now as soon as it starts, I jump right to the bile and insults. It’s a huge time saver. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/43 "2019-10-17T00:42:43Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > OP wanted to know what sealioning was. But you didn’t answer that at all. I understand that the reason is that you don’t feel like participating in a discussion, you just want to be a jagoff. I suppose a man’s got to focus on his strengths. I just keep that asshole on IGNORE. Him and a few others. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/44 "2019-10-17T00:48:29Z")
WRT Mr. **Farnaby** : > [@Ravenman](#): > > He follows me from thread to thread like an angry yet impotent wasp, trying to sting me with barbs I just never feel. > [@Skywatcher](#): > > So, he is a troll, albeit an ineffectual one? 🙂 Well, he was effective enough at getting me to put him on my Ignore list, so he’s got that going for him… ---
**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 17, 2019, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/45 "2019-10-17T00:50:27Z")
But even when everyone is debating in good faith, it’s pretty naive to enter any debate and ever expect to change the opinion of someone who has enough to conviction to support the opposing position. In general, the people you may influence in carefully laying out evidence and arguments are third party lurkers who may be less familiar with the issue - genuinely open-minded people are less likely to comment at all, I think. I don’t think it’s worth expending too much thought on somebody’s motivations except when they are actively disrupting. Best to just participate when you think your contribution may be of value to another reader in context. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/46 "2019-10-17T00:54:10Z")
:smack: D’Oh! Ninja’d by **SteveG1**! ---
**Author:** ![Trancephalic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trancephalic/32/380_2.png) [@Trancephalic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trancephalic)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/47 "2019-10-17T02:20:20Z")
I just wish the wondermark person picked an animal with a less awkward name to gerund. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/48 "2019-10-17T02:36:12Z")
> [@Trancephalic](#): > > I just wish the wondermark person picked an animal with a less awkward name to gerund. Platypussing? Aardvarking? ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/49 "2019-10-17T02:39:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I really can’t tell if this is meant as a brilliant example of sealioning, or if this is just a perfect example of sealioning. If the former, Kudos to you, you almost whooshed me, and did whoosh **raventhief**. I freely admit I may have been whooshed. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/50 "2019-10-17T02:55:38Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I freely admit I may have been whooshed. …also known as “raventhieving.” You got raventhieved. Raventheft…ed? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/51 "2019-10-17T03:38:57Z")
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=883284](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=883284) I had never heard of this before. What about this thread? It feels like being in a looking glass. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/52 "2019-10-17T03:40:42Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I don’t think so, obviously (given my reply above). I know I had the same initial impression that the cartoon was a bit odd, and only got the point later (I think) when sealioning was explained to me more explicitly. I still think the cartoon is odd as it seems more to be based on attacking someone personally and then being unwilling to make a case for your attack. I may be missing something here but the woman did state that she didn’t like sealions did she not? If i insert any other race, nationality, sex etc. into that cartoon would you not think it perfectly reasonable for the woman to be challenged on such an opinion? The debating technique supposedly embodied by the cartoon is real and annoying but the cartoon makes a terrible case for it. The point is well worth making but that cartoon doesn’t do it. Of course now that it has been wrapped up in the handy shorthand term “sealioning” it becomes possible to just chuck that accusation at someone in lieu of actually having to defend what you say safe in the knowledge that no further effort is required on your part. And sure enough it has already happened to me right here. If I criticise the cartoon and the weakness or muddled thinking of its message it gets labelled as “sealioning” which pretty clearly shows the weakness of the concept. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/53 "2019-10-17T04:04:32Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I still think the cartoon is odd as it seems more to be based on attacking someone personally and then being unwilling to make a case for your attack. I may be missing something here but the woman did state that she didn’t like sealions did she not? **If i insert any other race, nationality, sex etc. into that cartoon would you not think it perfectly reasonable for the woman to be challenged on such an opinion?** > > The debating technique supposedly embodied by the cartoon is real and annoying but the cartoon makes a terrible case for it. The point is well worth making but that cartoon doesn’t do it. Of course now that it has been wrapped up in the handy shorthand term “sealioning” it becomes possible to just chuck that accusation at someone in lieu of actually having to defend what you say safe in the knowledge that no further effort is required on your part. > > And sure enough it has already happened to me right here. If I criticise the cartoon and the weakness or muddled thinking of its message it gets labelled as “sealioning” which pretty clearly shows the weakness of the concept. Bolding mine. How about animal? What if she says she doesn’t like horses, or cats, or wombats? She’s not talking about a person, she is not taking about a race, the author chose very specifically to make it an animal. A talking animal, sure, but apparently in that universe \* that’s what sea lions do\*. They follow people around, askng for cites and evidence and even following them into their home! I wouldn’t like that either. Maybe you would. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/54 "2019-10-17T04:05:47Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > …also known as “raventhieving.” You got raventhieved. Raventheft…ed? 😉 Maybe I’m getting Raventhefted again 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/55 "2019-10-17T04:12:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > All kidding aside, on this board the key things to pay attention to are: > > 1. Overuse of asking for cites, > 2. Fixation on the use of a particular word, such as asking for precise definitions and then quibbling with them, > 3. 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, > 4. Altering the basics of the debate or moving the goalposts of a standard of proof, forcing others to essentially go back to square one, > 5. 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?” This is a pretty good list. Way back about 4 years ago, this is what I wrote about it: > [@Let's discuss sea lioning](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-sea-lioning/736060/33): > > 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: > > > [@](#): > > > > It was met with approval at Boing Boing > > Why would you think that? > > > [@](#): > > > > It is reasonable to ask for accountability. > > 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. ---
**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 17, 2019, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/56 "2019-10-17T04:26:41Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I still think the cartoon is odd as it seems more to be based on attacking someone personally and then being unwilling to make a case for your attack. I may be missing something here but the woman did state that she didn’t like sealions did she not? If i insert any other race, nationality, sex etc. into that cartoon would you not think it perfectly reasonable for the woman to be challenged on such an opinion? No, it is being unwilling to engage with any and all who demand that one’s opinion be justified to their satisfaction before any conversation can continue. You could also insert any movie, band, or celebrity into the cartoon, and the point would be just as valid. My personal distaste for something, whether it is socially acceptable to have such a distaste or not, does not need to be justified to you,just because you demand I do so. > [@](#): > > The debating technique supposedly embodied by the cartoon is real and annoying but the cartoon makes a terrible case for it. The point is well worth making but that cartoon doesn’t do it. Of course now that it has been wrapped up in the handy shorthand term “sealioning” it becomes possible to just chuck that accusation at someone in lieu of actually having to defend what you say safe in the knowledge that no further effort is required on your part. No, the cartoon does not tell the whole story, it is simply an “parable” as it were. It strikes the right chord, and puts a name to a very real form of trolling. Ravenman’s list is a much better descriptor than the cartoon, which only showed a snapshot of one aspect of the technique. > [@](#): > > And sure enough it has already happened to me right here. If I criticise the cartoon and the weakness or muddled thinking of its message it gets labelled as “sealioning” which pretty clearly shows the weakness of the concept. To be fair, between several intentional over the top sealions in this thread, and the fact that your post was essentially asking for a cite that the woman in the comic had a reason to not care for sealions, I really couldn’t tell for sure if you were messing with us. Though it takes more the repeated insistence for citing of irrelevant information and justifications of opinions to make it into a trolling tactic. Lets say you say you could do without the Beatles, and so I then start demanding you justify your opinion, as obviously, the Beatles are the best band ever, and you must convince me that I am wrong about this before I allow you to talk about anything else. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/57 "2019-10-17T04:29:51Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I still think the cartoon is odd as it seems more to be based on attacking someone personally and then being unwilling to make a case for your attack. I may be missing something here but the woman did state that she didn’t like sealions did she not? If i insert any other race, nationality, sex etc. into that cartoon would you not think it perfectly reasonable for the woman to be challenged on such an opinion? > > The debating technique supposedly embodied by the cartoon is real and annoying but the cartoon makes a terrible case for it. The point is well worth making but that cartoon doesn’t do it. Of course now that it has been wrapped up in the handy shorthand term “sealioning” it becomes possible to just chuck that accusation at someone in lieu of actually having to defend what you say safe in the knowledge that no further effort is required on your part. > > And sure enough it has already happened to me right here. If I criticise the cartoon and the weakness or muddled thinking of its message it gets labelled as “sealioning” which pretty clearly shows the weakness of the concept. If one were to follow the link beneath the original comic labeled “Also, [a clarification on the sea lion](http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/) character,” one would find this: > [@](#): > > #1062; The Terrible Sea Lion > > It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written. > > But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made. > > Such is the case with this comic. The sea lion character is not meant to represent actual sea lions, or any actual animal. It is meant as a metaphorical stand-in for human beings that display certain behaviors. Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics. > > My apologies if the use of a metaphorical sea lion in this strip, rather than a human being making conscious choices about their own behavior, was in any way confusing. > > As for their attire: everyone in Wondermark dresses like that. ---
**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 17, 2019, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/58 "2019-10-17T07:20:06Z")
Regardless of that disingenuous explanation, it’s pretty clear that the bigotry is a feature and not a bug. “Sea lions” are obviously straight cisgender white guys. This insult, like “mansplaining”, is intended as some sort of force field to prevent woke people (mostly women) from having to actually defend their arguments when challenged in a civil manner\* by straight white dudes. A not terribly distant cousin is “Islamophobia”. \*This is key, because we have seen a lot of feminists getting attacked by non-civil and even threatening straight white dudes. That was easy to dismiss for obvious reasons. But when they increasingly encountered guys who challenged their arguments without being threatening or even using abusive language, they had to come up with some excuse to not be expected to defend their points with evidence and logic. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/59 "2019-10-17T07:31:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You could also insert any movie, band, or celebrity into the cartoon, and the point would be just as valid. My personal distaste for something, whether it is socially acceptable to have such a distaste or not, does not need to be justified to you, just because you demand I do so. True, but that’s a point clouded by the clumsiness of the cartoon. > [@](#): > > To be fair, between several intentional over the top sealions in this thread, and the fact that your post was essentially asking for a cite that the woman in the comic had a reason to not care for sealions, It clearly was nothing of the sort. There was no request for any citation at all. You have had to insert that in order to make your mistaken accusation credible. Here’s my first post in full > [@](#): > > The original cartoon, as cited, has the woman denigrating the sealion for no reason at all. Doesn’t seem like the most solid ground on which to build a meme. No request for a cite in any way shape or form, not a hint of “sealioning” either in the narrow form within the cartoon, nor with regards to the expanded list that \*\*Ravenman \*\*provided. What I actually did was _criticise_ the cartoon for being unclear and ambiguous, the fact that a further clarification was needed by the author is an admission of this. The fact that a thread is needed to unpick what it means suggests it is not as simple as some may think. I suspect we’d not need a thread to explain what point 4) of Ravenman’s list means Ravenman’s list is a far more helpful reminder of debating techniques that can be deployed dishonestly and they are a very common technique used particulary (in my experience) for debates of a religious nature. I’d include the famous “Gish Gallop” in there as well. But there is a danger in creating a term such as “sealion” which purports to encompass those terms and even more nebulous stuff because, guess what, asking for citations and pushing people to define their terms and back up their arguments can all be absolutely valid and necessary for productive debate so being able dshonestly label _any_ such examples of that as “sealioning” is not helpful. ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2019, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/60 "2019-10-17T07:32:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Regardless of that disingenuous explanation, it’s pretty clear that the bigotry is a feature and not a bug. “Sea lions” are obviously straight cisgender white guys. This insult, like “mansplaining”, is intended as some sort of force field to prevent woke people (mostly women) from having to actually defend their arguments when challenged in a civil manner\* by straight white dudes. A not terribly distant cousin is “Islamophobia”. > > \*This is key, because we have seen a lot of feminists getting attacked by non-civil and even threatening straight white dudes. That was easy to dismiss for obvious reasons. But when they increasingly encountered guys who challenged their arguments without being threatening or even using abusive language, they had to come up with some excuse to not be expected to defend their points with evidence and logic. I cannot take this seriously. Is this some masterful parody that I’m being whooshed on, or do you actually believe this balderdash? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837.md?page=4)