The original “sea lion” said:
"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”
And that’s what they did Socrates in for, he wouldn’t stop asking questions to people who rather not delve in what the answers (or lack of answers) told about themselves and what they believed to be true.
That kid’s going to end up in law school and drive all the other 1Ls nuts.
I needn’t explain my beet aversion. But what people do NOT dislike sea lions?
[ul]
[li] Folks who have never been close enough to smell or be endangered by them.[/li][li] Folks who, if in their proximity, lack a sense of smell and/or survival instinct.[/li][li] Folks with no friends nor kin who suffered from smelly, dangerous pinnipeds.[/li][li] Folks who are paid to associate with and/or slaughter large, juicy pinnipeds.[/li][li] Wildlife photographers with long telephoto lenses and handy escape routes.[/li][li] Really sick pervs and pr0n producers, furries in sea lion suits, and Buddha. [/li][/ul]
Everyone else can freely despise them without excuse. Thus the dislike is normal, be they near or far, no alibi needed. Just as I can freely dislike beets. And if a beet harassed me, I would catapult it as far as possible, same as an online sealionist.
That’s what happens when like in the US, the definition of “treason” is so narrow that one can blatantly commit treason without it being *legal treason. People have to call it something, *and most people are going to use the obvious word regardless of the official legal definition.
Maybe you need some completely different term, because all this talk about asking insincere questions, etc. just doesn’t match up to the actual cartoon. This woman says she doesn’t like sea lions. A sea lion overhears this* and asks her what sea lions ever did to her? Does she have any evidence to back up her negative opinion about sea lions? She never offers any or apologizes for having offended him–just yells at him to go away. The sea lion says there’s no reason for her to raise her voice and that he has been unfailingly polite while they have been nothing but rude.
If there’s anything we can be fairly confident of, it’s that the sea lion is sincere about not being super jazzed about being declared as a disliked class or entity or whatever. What really bothers the woman and her friend (meaning, really, the cartoonist) is that the sea lion doesn’t just scream at her for being a bitch or whatever, because if he did she could be publicly justified in avoiding any further interaction. Instead, he politely asks her to justify her prejudice against him. The reason she and the cartoonist don’t like this is that in civil society, this is understood to put him in a sympathetic position for understandable reasons. So this cartoon was a way to vent about how annoying it is to be put on the spot that way, and not have any way to get out of answering for the prejudice. That’s quite clearly what it is about: it is right there in the text.
So it boils down to a complaint of “Don’t you hate it when you are being catty and nasty about a class of people, and then one of them overhears you and calls you out on it, but in a polite way that makes them look like the victim and you look like the asshole?” To then elevate this to some honorable stance, an amulet to be wielded whenever needed, is completely unsupportable.
*He notes that it was in a public place, i.e. Twitter. This pair of friends’ disgruntled reaction is something I have seen many times, from people who think they should be able to talk whatever shit they like on Twitter and not have anyone who isn’t sympathetic to them weigh in. That’s not how Twitter works. It’s not fucking Facebook. Or you can choose to keep stuff protected like on Facebook, but then you won’t have the chance for something you say to go viral in a positive way. You can’t have it both ways, have your cake and eat it too.
No, she says she could do without them. That’s neither catty nor nasty. She merely expressed a preference of hers during a casual conversation with someone else. That’s it.
Yes. Which makes him the asshole. She said it in a private conversation with another person inside an automobile. That’s hardly a public space. She didn’t shout it from atop a pillar with a megaphone hoping people would hear (i.e. Twitter). A third person butting into their conversation and making demands is an asshole.
He further keeps being the asshole by badgering them both about it wherever they go henceforth, when clearly they’re not interested. Just because he’s “polite” (that is to say, uses polite language) doesn’t mean he isn’t being a dick. You can couch horrible things in perfectly PC and polite language - to whit. And if I don’t care to talk to you or address your dubious points, you don’t get to harass me into doing so.
Which is what sealioning is essentially about : being a dick while being very careful about appearing to be “civil” in order to paint oneself as the put-upon victim should said dickishness be pointed out.
This is pretty choice from someone who keeps whinging about being called an islamophobe for repeatedly being an asshole about a class of people on a public forum ;).
Kobal, you have really wandered into the wilderness with this post. Are you actually this confused or are you desperately spinning?
You actually think this cartoon is about people having private conversations face-to-face in their cars and being accosted by someone who appears out of nowhere? Seriously? Duuude. :smack: It’s quite obviously about Twitter and other areas of social media, plus maybe Reddit, message boards like this one, etc. But mostly it’s about Twitter. I think even the people who love this cartoon would generally acknowledge that. [ETA: And if it’s really what you claim it is, how can anyone be “sealioning” here at the SDMB? What you are claiming makes absolutely no sense. Did you think this through at all before posting it?]
I can sort of see why you think you have a good zinger here, but once again you have lost the plot. Do you really think that if a Muslim person challenged me as to why I am anti-Islam, I would dodge the question or try to make the conversation stop? No. I would answer. I would engage. I would quote Sam Harris from his latest podcast because he says it better than I could:
Is it that obvious ? I’ve had the dubious pleasure of meeting plenty of sealions offline.
But even on a “public” forum like the SDMB, or on Twitter, conversations between individuals do happen. They might not be private, strictly speaking, but they’re still ongoing conversations that don’t involve a sea lion.
If poster A says something, poster B engages, poster A responds and so on, then suddenly poster C starts haranguing them, keeps interjecting into the discussion they were having and demands they address what he’s saying (which they are ignoring for any reason, though most often it’s because they recognize him as a disingenuous ass) or tries to force the conversation towards his pet cause ; then he’s being a nuisance, no matter how “polite” his wording is, nor how urgently he plucks his MahFreeSpeech™ harp.
WE ARE TRYING TO EAT BREAKFAST
Their private conversation on a public forum about how they don’t like his kind. Riiiight. :dubious: How dare he try to politely inject himself into that? :rolleyes:
Again, let’s get real about what this cartoon is really metaphorically representing. A couple (or more) woke feminist types on Twitter, possibly young WOC, engage in some kind of snarky banter about how much straight white dudes suck. “God love the confidence of a mediocre white man”, that type of thing. They don’t intend this to be private. They want it to be liked, praised, retweeted to the heavens. What they don’t want is for some middle-aged straight white dude to come along and politely object “Really? That’s not very nice. What gives you the right to disparage or dismiss me that way without knowing me? Can you offer some actual tangible reason for doing so?”
Now they are BUS-TED. It’s very awkward. But along comes this cartoonist to give them an out. Just say the straight white dude is “sealioning” and brush him off, problem solved. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes: as long as they can get enough of their woke comrades in the amen choir to insist that this all somehow makes sense, they are good to go. Who needs intellectual honesty when you have a bunch of yes-people in your woke bubble to provide you (and each other) constant affirmation and shout down the critics?
…nope. We are actually talking about stuff like this. (Scroll down and read the feed)
Nothing about how “straight white dudes suck.” Not a young woman of colour. Not engaging in snarky banter. Just the person who was at the epicentre of the goobergate scandal getting called a murderer by hundreds of anonymous trolls for doing nothing more than promoting her work. But at least most of them who are accusing her of murder are doing so politely.
You can have precise definitions of words without the disingenuous questioning, though. You can simply include a line in your post like “I don’t think treason is the right word, as I limit that to the legal definition. However[…]” and then actually discuss what the poster said.
There just isn’t any reason to ask for proof when you are aware that the person isn’t using the word in the legal definition. (And, if you’re not sure, you can ask if they mean the legal definition.) All that does is show you’re trying to shut off the conversation–making it about the definition of “treason.”
It’s not like the exact words actually matter. If you think that what Trump did is dishonest, corrupt, and bad for America, I don’t care if you call it “treason” or not. If you agree that antisemitism and white nationalism are bad, I don’t give a shit if you don’t want to call them “Nazis.”
What matters are the underlying ideas. The words are just how we communicate those ideas, and only important if they cause misunderstandings.
Cite?
I think you might have mislabeled your browser’s bookmarks - I’m pretty sure you wanted to post this on Return of Kings, r/redpill or possibly the comment section of a Sargon of Akkad youtube video.
Man, this is some pretty paranoid rantings.
There are reasons that chowderhead is on my ignore list. Kinda wish others would ignore him, too, the place is much more pleasant not having to read his idiocy.
So you are acting as your own conservative strawman so I don’t have to go out and find one? Thanks.
What do you mean by your second usage of the word “treason”?
j/k
But perhaps I don’t agree with what you think is treason? How will I know what you mean by it without asking you?
But you haven’t explained why you won’t 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.
The whole point of it is to exhaust the other person into giving up or conceding out of frustration. I actually have shit to do, and want to spend what time I spend here constructively, so you are absolutely right that you could probably answer questions longer than I care to ask, however if you have plenty of free time, and you desire to use that time to disrupt, rather than participate in a conversation, then you can ask questions for far longer than anyone would care to answer them.
No, I have defined my use of the word “treason” by using it in the context of betraying the Kurds. 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.
If you want to ask why what we did to the Kurds was so bad, that’s valid. If you want to ask me to defend my use of the word, then that’s a distraction. If the dictionary definition (the action of betraying someone or something) isn’t good enough, and you demand that I use the legal definition, then that is completely trying to stop the conversation.
Tell me, which response is more conducive to a productive conversation?
Me: Betraying the Kurds is treason.
Normal poster I’d agree with: I don’t know if I would use the word treason to describe the actions, but we really did let them down,
Normal poster I’d disagree with: We didn’t really betray them, they knew it was coming eventually, and they had been using our presence as a shield from which to commit terrorist attacks.
Sealion: How is that “TREASON”? Treason is defined as “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason”, so how does legally changing our military priorities meet the legal definition of “TREASON”?
And, in the post that got really under my skin (and I think triggered the warning), it was more of a Socratic “in what way was this treason?” without even providing the legal definition the sealion was thinking of, so you don’t even know which definition the sealion was going to use. At least with your version, one could respond, “well, it’s not treason under the wording of the US Constitution, but it’s still betraying the country and its values, etc, whatever, blah.” In the real sealion post, you can’t even go with that response. Grrr.