Sealioning

[Banquet_Bear]

@Riemann

But it’s a bit odd to derive a new word for a concept from something that is not a clear and archetypal example of it.

…its only odd if you are brand new to the internet.

But there is obviously a huge divide here between the people that observed directly what happened during goobergate and those that did not. Sealioning was used directly as a tactic to attack women and marginalised people. It was used to brigade and shut down conversation. It was used as a tool to drive people off Twitter, from Facebook.

Identifying and naming the tactic and developing strategies to deal with and pushback against it was part of the whole reason why the term sealioning became a thing in the first place. When the cartoon came out everyone who had been subjected to it **immediately **identified the sealion as the typical goobergater. It was really fucking obvious. Five years on and without that immediate context of course the cartoon won’t resonate in the same way.

[Larry_Borgia]

@SlackerInc

I don’t have anyone on ignore. I just don’t have much to say about this kind of weak attempt at gaslighting.

Well he did put up some cogent arguments against your idiotic complaints, so I can see why you’d want to dismiss them as, uh, gaslighting. (wait, seriously? No I don’t think you are serious. You just like to run away from arguments you can’t counter.)

God, you suck.

[SlackerInc]

@Larry_Borgia

You just like to run away from arguments you can’t counter.

Now that is some deep irony. I’d almost be impressed if I thought it was knowing.

[Kobal2]

@SlackerInc

Now that is some deep irony. I’d almost be impressed if I thought it was knowing.

Then go ahead and adress my arguments. Or at least explain to us how what I said constitutes “gaslighting”.

(I’d usually add something to the extent of “I’m just being civil” or “are you simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion ?” here for the lulz of it, but that would confuse the message and defeat the purpose. I’m honestly trying to reach out and provoke a lightbulb moment here.)

[Kobal2]

BTW, if you think I’m secretly part of some sort of woke feminist cabal trying to spin your head around for the Illuminati or somesuch, I do enjoin you to look me up on Google. I won’t doxx myself for obvious reasons, but I don’t recall ever really using my real name on the web for anything beyond job searches anyway. Searching for my handle on this forum, or kobal2fr which is what I use when Kobal2 is already taken which does happen sometimes and I don’t fucking know how, should take you to my old blog ; possibly a few other forums ; and some Steam gaming advice pages. I think there might also be an artsy nekkid Pulp Fiction-inspired picture of my younger self out there for you to find, so you have that to look forward to.
I also go by Atrabilaire sometimes (that’s a high falutin’ French word for cranky and/or melancholic, if you have to know) but I don’t think I’ve ever written anything of substance under that name - it’s my “this is a garbage account that I don’t care if it’s hacked” handle.

[SlackerInc]

@Kobal2

Then go ahead and adress my arguments. Or at least explain to us how what I said constitutes “gaslighting”.

There were no arguments to address. The post you faulted me for not responding to read, in its entirety, as follows:

@Kobal2

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.

This can be boiled down to:

“We all know you’re wrong. Therefore, just give up and admit it. It’s like if you were absurdly wrong about this completely different thing and wouldn’t admit it.”

What is there here to respond to? I have already explained my position in detail. If you genuinely think I have had a psychotic break from reality or whatever, thennn…okay? Bully for you. But to say I remain unconvinced of this would be a massive understatement.

[Isamu]

@Ludovic

He is home invading, which is what makes the situation complicated, because contrary to what the creator and some in this thread contend, being a sealion is an immutable characteristic and so the panel cannot be completely free of the insinuation that the initial speaker was prejudiced against sealions.

To me, the most relevant parallel to online humans I can construct would be if a Stormfronter said “i just don’t like black people” and a black person saw that followed them around and even onto their web site demanding a conversation. And then when that didn’t happen they doxxed the Stormfronter, at which point the bigot says to his fellow bigots “see, told you. Black people.” Doxxing isn’t the right thing to do, but then again, neither is being a bigot and it doesn’t prove that all black people are angry doxxers.

I don’t know if there was a specific Gamergate comment that sparked this comic, but if there is, then it depends on the specific words used. If they said “wow, those Gamergaters are really something aren’t they” then the sealioning is an indefensible reaction to a run of the mill comment; on the other hand if they said “wow, gamers are really a piece of work aren’t they?” then it’s an indefensible reaction to an indefensible comment, because “gamer” is a mutable but irrelevant characteristic.

Yeah, that’s about it, I think. Don’t pre-judge all sea-lions, some have really great personalities. And don’t dox people. Live and let live.

[Kobal2]

@SlackerInc

There were no arguments to address.

Beeeecause you picked the wrong post.

I have already explained my position in detail

And been corrected. Repeatedly. By everyone.

[SlackerInc]

There you go again.

But if there was actually some substantive point you wanted me to address, link me to the post, or tell me the post number. Telling me “you’re crazy, and we can all see it but you” is (call me crazy, lol) not something I am interested in responding to. Imagine that.

[SlackerInc]

BTW, note that my use of “gaslighting” is entirely consistent with the usage in the source material, a nearly century-old play. Unlike your use of “sealioning”, despite the much more recent provenance of the sea lion comic.

[Kobal2]

@SlackerInc

BTW, note that my use of “gaslighting” is entirely consistent with the usage in the source material, a nearly century-old play. Unlike your use of “sealioning”, despite the much more recent provenance of the sea lion comic.

Gaslighting involves trying to convince someone that something which is not true is in fact true. It’s literally the opposite of what I’m doing, which is trying to correct your dogged, wilful state of being factually wrong.

You’ve been given numerous cites and links to formal definitions of the word besides and beyond the comic itself. You’ve been given examples of actual sealioning in the world. We’ve all told you that’s what we meant by the word when we use it. And yet you keep insisting that no, no, you have the one real understanding of it and it’s the entire rest of the world that’s mistaken. That’s not how language works.

[BigT]

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Gaslighting is a form of abuse that attempts to convince someone that they are delusional and cannot trust their own senses and memory. It comes from a play called Gaslight where a husband does exactly this to his wife.

No one is doing anything remotely like gaslighting here. You appear to be doing something that the anti-liberals do: they’ll steal words they’ve heard liberals and progressives use and completely misuse them. It’s like you think those words are magic talismans that help liberals win arguments, rather than words with actual meaning.

[The_Librarian]

@Kobal2

Gaslighting involves trying to convince someone that something which is not true is in fact true. It’s literally the opposite of what I’m doing, which is trying to correct your dogged, wilful state of being factually wrong.

You’ve been given numerous cites and links to formal definitions of the word besides and beyond the comic itself. You’ve been given examples of actual sealioning in the world. We’ve all told you that’s what we meant by the word when we use it. And yet you keep insisting that no, no, you have the one real understanding of it and it’s the entire rest of the world that’s mistaken. That’s not how language works.

How the fuck are you not seeing what he’s doing? It is right there in the title of the thread.

[SlackerInc]

@BigT

It’s like you think those words are magic talismans that help liberals win arguments, rather than words with actual meaning.

Again: the irony here is so thick it would require a jungle machete to hack through. :rolleyes:

[Babale]

Here’s a great example. In a thread about how the South had managed to rewrite the Civil War with the Lost Cause narrative, Rio Rico asks, “why do we let the losers write history”, clearly meaning, “why did we let the losers of the Civil War set the tone for how we view the North and South?”. One mighty walrus pops into the thread with this gem:

@octopus

Great Britain wrote history after losing the war another group of slave owning traitors started. Who was going to stop them?

[SlackerInc]

So now any snarky quip from someone whose politics you disagree with is a “great example”? :smack:

[k9bfriender]

@D_Anconia

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

k9bfriender “You do not need to accept my definition of treason for your use, but you should accept that I am using it in that way.”

What is the substantive difference?

:dubious: No, you claimed that I quoted Humpty Dumpty, not that I said something that you found to be similar. Or do you not think that words have meaning?

Also, please justify your claim that there is no substantive difference between making up definitions of words, and using words as they are defined in the dictionary.

[octopus]

@Babale

Here’s a great example. In a thread about how the South had managed to rewrite the Civil War with the Lost Cause narrative, Rio Rico asks, “why do we let the losers write history”, clearly meaning, “why did we let the losers of the Civil War set the tone for how we view the North and South?”. One mighty walrus pops into the thread with this gem:

I notice you didn’t quote Riemann who also thought the prohibition on history writing was ridiculous. Try not to be a poor reading comprehension, low IQ, dishonest doofus,

[SteveG1]

@Kobal2

Gaslighting involves trying to convince someone that something which is not true is in fact true. It’s literally the opposite of what I’m doing, which is trying to correct your dogged, wilful state of being factually wrong.

You’ve been given numerous cites and links to formal definitions of the word besides and beyond the comic itself. You’ve been given examples of actual sealioning in the world. We’ve all told you that’s what we meant by the word when we use it. And yet you keep insisting that no, no, you have the one real understanding of it and it’s the entire rest of the world that’s mistaken. That’s not how language works.

That’s why assholes like him get the IGNORE.

[SteveG1]

@The_Librarian

How the fuck are you not seeing what he’s doing? It is right there in the title of the thread.

Bingo!