No, in that world, *all *sealions are dicks.
Nope. Just that HD is clearly engaging in obnoxious trolling with those thread titles (I didn’t read the actual OPs and I doubt they would change my mind). I see no parallel with the sea lion comic.
Yes, but what exactly is very unclear. The crux is what the “home” represents. If it’s an unprotected tweet, the metaphor is fundamentally rotten and disingenuous.
Not really. Even on the internet, bubbles and semi-private spaces exist even when they’re technically open public spaces. Like, in your example/conspiracty theory about young nubile persons of color college girls trash talking all white men for the benefit of their friends and followers on the twitters, you (the middle aged antifeminist trog) have no real reason to be there, read their shit or stumble upon that content unless you’re friends with said college girl or you’re directed to go and look at what those people are saying by no doubt well intentioned twitter users. In other words, unless you set out looking for outrage and stupid people to be outraged by (though, again, I’ve yet to meet the prophecized shrieking manhating feminazi. And I’m actually a middle aged white guy who’s back in college, where they supposedly nest). That’s on you.
Similarly, if you’re set to harass someone because of what they said on one forum, look up which other forums they frequent and start some shit there, then the home analogy works perfectly fine as well. At that point you’re invading a community for the sole purpose of being a dick and turning it into a hostile space, not just for the person you’re harassing, but everyone else there as well.
Whereas what *normal *people do on the interwebs when they read tweets they deem to be assholish by people who are assholes is… move away, with or without leaving one “well fuck YOU” comment. But don’t follow that person, put them on the /ignore list, and simply avoid the company of assholes, which is a lot easier to do on the web than in meatspace. It’s utterly dysfunctional and toxic to feel the need to a) make that person not say those things ever again and b) feel that you are entitled to have that person listen to you or respond to your arguments and/or insults to the point that you’re stalking them around the internet (and, in the case of Gamergate for example, enjoining others to stalk them as well).
I disagree with that. If you post on a public forum the public has every right to participate. You can create closed spaces easily enough if that’s what you wish.
As I said, many people believe they ought to have the right to broadcast any insults they feel like spewing on an open area of Twitter, and for this to attract as many likeminded strangers as possible to join the amen chorus, while simultaneously being protected from any objection presented by those who are the targets of the insults. I call bullshit on that.
So brave!
Are you sealioning?
If there is anything missing from the cartoon, it is the implied part of the man who for sure has already dealt with bad faith harasser seals.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/sea-lion.html
Who said anything about rights ? It’s about being a jerk. Nobody said you didn’t have a right to be a jerk. We just all wish you didn’t avail yourself of that right, on account of it being, by some accounts, a little jerkish and annoying to fucking everyone else but you.
Actually there actually **is **a rule here about not being a jerk, so there you go.
GIGO’s cites in no way respond to my point, and by extension don’t actually address what is portrayed in the comic:
How would the sea lion do his own digging to find out why the woman doesn’t like sea lions? Why would you assume he is insincere in wondering if she actually knows any sea lions personally?
Again, you and the people at these cites clearly want it to mean something completely different from what is directly portrayed in the comic. Just get another term then!
For the umpteenth time, merely responding to someone or engaging someone who you feel are Wrong On The Internet is not the issue. You keep trying to assert that “oh well anyone who says anything to WOC feminists is called a sealion !”, but that’s simply not true.
The problem isn’t with objecting, but in the way and the extent you’re objecting and the specific form that objection takes. Trolling and harassment is not OK. If you are not trolling those WOC feminazis and if you’re not harassing them and following them around to bombard them with “polite” questions asked in bad faith, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.
Nope, clearly you are willfully missing about what the man in the cartoon clearly implies, He knows beforehand about what sealions do, and they are not going to do it in good faith; it is also clear that you do not like to deal with the points the cites make.
I specifically asked about whether it fits with the definition that Bone and Ravenman supplied, not the comic.
Man, your reading comprehension could use some help – you read that comic and think it’s about white men for some reason and you read my post and think it’s about the comic. I suppose we all read with filters on but, man, yours are strong.
You’re right, I’m actually not all that great at this trolling thing.
Try again:
Why won’t you wear red? You claim that you have nothing against red, but your shirts and ties are all blue, those aren’t the actions of someone who doesn’t have anything against red. How can you say that you have nothing against red, when you are obviously biased toward blue?
If I have already defined what I am posting, then asking me to explain it over and over again to you satisfaction is disruptive.
Using treason to mean “betrayal” is entirely valid. It is in the dictionary and everything. That I am not using treason in the way that you want it to be defined is your problem, not mine.
Well, that’s just poor observation on your part. People explain their opinions on topics all the time.
What you are looking for here is not someone to explain their opinion, it is to justify their opinion to your satisfaction.
And that’s fine, if you have a narrow definition of the word treason, and you are only willing to use that narrow definition while discussing issues with others. But forcing everyone else to use the terminology that you prefer is not.
Your guess is not a cite.
Right, which is why, when instead of explaining why you agree or disagree why we should betray the Kurds, you instead focus on a single word that was not used in a way that you approve of, you are not contributing to a productive conversation.
If you feel that something is hyperbole, then get over it. If it merits a mention, then mention and get over it. To focus on what you feel is hyperbole is to derail the conversation.
For instance
Me: We shouldn’t betray the Kurds because of such and such reasons. What we did is treason.
Which part of that post should you focus on? You already said how you would reply to the first, but adding the second tends to make you ignore the first sentence, in order to focus on the second that contains word choice that you disapprove of.
Ah, worst possible words, you say? Now that is hyperbole. There are worse possible words that people could use to describe things. Just because you do not agree that they are appropriate words, or that the words are stronger than is merited by what they describe, does not make them inaccurate, nor does it make them “the worst possible”.
See “Death Camps” for example. :rolleyes:
Concentration camp is a very accurate term for holding a bunch of people in high density living arrangements. That it has some baggage that it picked up because Nazis used concentration camps is not the fault of someone who accurately describes something happening. Once again, this is an example of objecting to a word or term, not because it is wrong or inaccurate, but only because you don’t like it. This serves only as a distraction from the discussion as to whether or not the detentions are justified and the living conditions are humane.
That’s not what he said.
So, your message is: Stay out of public unless you are willing to be harassed and stalked?
So you acknowledge objecting and questioning is not “literally all he is doing”. Was that so hard? What it’s a metaphor for is irrelevant.
And only unclear to some people, I didn’t have a problem getting exactly what was being conveyed.
Why am I reminded of Cervaise vs the Telemarketer? “I have a butthole, too, but that doesn’t imply I want a running jigsaw inserted into it.”
It most certainly is not.
I still firmly believe my interpretation of the comic is a solid inference, but I can acknowledge that it is my perception of the subtext rather than being inarguably the plain meaning of the text. For you to insist you can make confident proclamations about “sealioning” even when they directly contradict what is shown in the comic is a very tenuous proposition indeed. With the comic so recent and the term still unknown to most people, it’s just not credible to claim that the meaning of this term is so starkly at odds with what we see laid out in the comic.
You should try it though. At least once. It’s hot.
Why ? We all understand what it’s about. Wr all grok what people the comic is lampooning. You’re literally the only person white knighting sealions. Why should we give a lonely fuck what your interpretation of the term, or the comic, is ? Again, **WHY **?
To give you an absurd example, imagine we were all discussing fracking and the damage it does to the environment and the measurable impact it has (or has not) on local communities ; and you were convinced the word “fracking” really was about Battlestar Galactica and its fandom. In that context, wouldn’t you feel the fool going on and on and on about Cylons and the methods with which the protagonists of the series deal with them, when all of us are talking about oil companies ?
Because that’s really where you’re at. Open yourself to the possibilty, remote as it may seem, that you might conceivably possibly in some respect be wrong. On the internet.
It’s not the end of the world.
Kobal, I think he has you on ignore.