It’s a favorite of conservatives
The best defense against sealioning is to give people more credit than they want and to believe they are smarter than they let on. “Nobody could be this dumb and if they are, it’s fruitless to attempt dialogue” should always be on ones mind.
TIL
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.
The problem I’ve always had with the term is that you can’t really define a term by pointing to a comic and going like, “It’s like when someone does this sort of thing.” Like there’s a bunch of things the sea lion is doing, one is:
pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence
Like if you get a grudge against a user and constantly hound them in every thread about a topic they don’t want to discuss, that’s pretty rude (and if you do this offline like in the comic, it’s straight-up harassment). That’s bad regardless of what form it takes. On the other hand, if it’s just a regular conversation and not following from thread to thread, you have every right to expect people to provide evidence for their claims. Another is:
maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter
“Feigning ignorance of the subject matter,” is also part of the Socratic Method, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s inherently bad to be like, “What specifically does this term mean, and why do you think this specific case meets the criteria?” If you believe something, you ought to be able to state things in clear terms, and that’s an important part of a healthy debate, it helps the other side to identify the point of disagreement where they break with your line of reasoning. Otherwise, how do you even go about having a productive conversation with someone you disagree with at all?
In my opinion, these sorts of internet neologisms are dangerous even if they are addressing a legitimate thing, because once it’s out there, you can’t control who’s going to use it. For example, “mansplaining” was intended to refer to a specific type of thing where a man assumes he’s an expert on a subject and explains in a paternalistic way, while often being ignorant of the subject matter, like random guys on Twitter trying to lecture a female astronaut about how space works. But there are also people who use it/interpret it to mean, “Whenever a man explains something” - even if he is actually qualified to speak on the subject, which provokes a backlash (and obviously the problem is made worse by people trying to exacerbate the backlash, including through sockpuppets).
The ambiguity of the term “sealioning” allows it to be used to shut down good faith questions and discussion, while leaving the accused without a lot of options to defend themself. “What do you mean by ‘sealioning?’ What specifically did I do or say that meets that definition, and why should that be grounds to dismiss what I’m saying, or to conclude I’m acting in bad faith?” is generally going to be met with, “That’s more sealioning.” If critically examining the concept of sealioining is sealioning, then I’m just inclined to dismiss the term entirely.
It’s actually a strategy of spreading bullshit and then somehow blaming the person who asks you to back it up.
Yeah I’m kind of mixed on this concept, because there is nothing wrong with asking for a source and/or asking someone to explain their position. And it seems like a really bad idea to discourage people from asking questions like that.
Seems to me that’s the point of it: to stop people asking questions in good faith and then persisting on challenging lies and disinformation.
I understand where you’re coming from, but it’ll be easy to tell. Someone who’s sealioning will skip or “forget” points you’ve already made when they’re making their counter arguments. The conversation will be irritating and demanding.
Someone who genuinely wants to discuss and learn won’t wear on you that way. Their replies won’t have that “I outsmarted you and you’re an idiot” kind of feel. It’s hard to explain, but people can recognize the difference. I don’t think there’s a threat to honest debate here.
Yes, it’s possible to confuse sealions with people who are simply rude and obnoxious, but since I don’t like talking to either one, I don’t much care.
The problem is not that it’s hard to to tell who is or is not sealioning. The problem is people using “sealioning” to go on the offensive against those who ask them to provide evidence or citations for their statements.
Fortunately, common sense usually works there, too. If person A makes highly specific or unusual statement, person B reasonably asks for a source, and person A angrily responds with defensiveness and accusations, then it’s pretty clear that person A was talking out of their ass.
Forgetting points that were already made is something that I commonly encounter, but I just attribute that to people being generally forgetful. I don’t have any expectation of other people putting in much effort in rereading the whole thread before each response; so if someone forgets what was previously discussed, I’ll just respond with a summary and continue from there.
I think the key part is whether it’s being done in good faith or bad faith. Sometimes I ask a stupid question on Lemmy, but because I am honestly curious and not trying to get into a fight, and I usually accept the reply to me and don’t take it as an invite to get into a debate, I think people can tell I’m not sealioning.
If I replied “source?” for your comment right now, I’d be trolling. I almost certainly know that it is a bad idea to discourage sourcing information, and that should not be something I need a cited source for. That would probably be sealioning. Someone asking for a source on a meme I posted is probably genuinely curious and not sealioning.
And as per usual, judging intent can be difficult, especially when people (including me) come into a forum with my own sets of biases, pieces of knowledge I have that I incorrectly assume that everyone else knows, and absence of knowledge that others incorrectly assume everyone else knows. So people who are not sealioning might get mistaken for it just because they want a source on something they do not know that most people do. I see where you are coming from.
How can you tell good faith from bad faith?
For instance, can you tell if this question is asked in good faith or not? These things seem very hard know.
It’s tricky. Often, you can only go by tone and context. Experience helps a lot. Even still, I’ll get it wrong sometimes.
That’s probably the best way of dealing with it.
And that’s exactly the ambiguity I was trying to get at with my last paragraph.
I’m kind of surprised I got downvoted while contrarian “source?” comments got lots of upvotes. In all honesty, it feels bad. I am not sure how I said anything anywhere near offensive that deserves disapproval, but being contrarian seems a lot more purposely meant to piss off and still meets lots of peoples’ approval.
But even still, I have gone and assumed bad faith or at best, an attempt to be funny and make people laugh through what is still in the end just contrarianism. I do not think it is possible they are genuinely asking for a source because I think we’re making claims based on general observation of the world, things that do not need to be cited, like “the sky is blue” or “things fall when you drop them”. Just look up and see (or trust the wealth of statements talking about the sky’s blueness if you are (color)blind). Perhaps I’m incorrectly assuming bad faith here based off of a trend of seeing contrarianism, and I’m incorrectly extrapolating that trend here. It is very ambiguous. I really do not think I am wrong, but given that we’re literally talking about the difficulty of determining good vs. bad faith engagement it feels a little arrogant to not acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.
That’s one of the issues, isn’t it? I recently found someone who only responded to comments about Margaret Thatcher, challenging negative comments about her. This person’s history went back years and ALL of the comments (thousands!) only challenged negative ones about her. It could have been a bot, of course, but if real, it was a pretty weird way of engaging online. That goes beyond contrarianism, it’s some sort of “distributed sealioning” maybe?
You usually only find out after repeatedly explaining, yet the interlocutor remaining unconvinced to a point where someone with good faith would’ve had enough information to work with.
That’s the thing, it takes time and Gish gallops you into proving ever more reduced assertions.
It’s very childish in nature, yet devis as it takes on the guide of scientific rational discourse.
It’s a hard one, though. I’ve found myself challenging someone who then avoids answering and making other similarly unsupported points… eventually you learn that it’s a waste of time. Equally, you don’t want to leave their comments out there unchallenged.
Yeah it’s hard, but that’s why you, my friend, are a light in the darkness;)
Good faith is extremely important. And even though it’s much harder to read this online than in real life, there people being disingenuous in real life.
It’s the reason why online debate is hard and escalates quickly. You see people getting angry with people they agree with, even though they are arguing the same point, but they don’t share their level of anger with the opposing side.
I think remaining calm and level headed and generous through even that is important as people will pick up on genuine emotion over spam and anger, eventually. And if we all do it it makes a better community.
Yeah context is definitely important
Source?
Yeah. I strongly dislike this whole classification that politely asking someone to back up what they said, or asking basic questions about it, is proof that you’re a terrible person and grounds for immediately quitting the conversation.
It also strikes me as relevant that the same people who say it is a sin, also tend to have no problem with overtly toxic behavior like slinging extreme abuse at anyone who disagrees with them or otherwise being an asshole.
I mean there are some keywords and phrases in the actual textbook definition here like “trolling”, “harrassment”, “incessant bad-faith invitations”. It’s a legitimate thing, but I almost always see it being used illegitimately by someone to attack another who is simply asking them to back up their statements. For example:
A: statement
B: What is your source for this statement?
A: sToP sEaLiOnIng!!!
I think the difference is that sealioning is a pattern of behavior, rather than just occasionally asking for a source. It describes the lack of intent to engage in good faith discussion and instead just is a method of trolling.
Yeah. There are genuine types of sophisticated trolling which involve pretending to be overtly polite while refusing to engage in any respect with the substance of what the other person’s saying, using politeness as a shield to sneak bullshit and bad-faith engagement into the discourse while making the other person look unreasonable if they start getting irritated about it.
In about 100% of cases where I’ve seen someone accused of “sealioning,” though, it is just that they are trying to engage with the conversation and ask for sources, if you have a certain way of approaching disagreement, that’s kryptonite to your argument and so the only response is to start whining about sealioning.
I have definitely come across what your first paragraph describes. Both sealioning and concern trolling definitely happens, on this site and on others.
Yeah. Probably my least favorite brand of it is when someone wanders into the comments to say, “I heard Kamala Harris wandered over to Gaza personally and shot some Palestinians just for fun, and then stopped by Tel Aviv to engage in some light foreplay with Netanyahu before getting back on a plane home stopping only to personally cause capitalism and so that’s why I don’t think I’m going to vote for her, I just don’t feel comfortable personally” and then reacts with “Whoa whoa whoa that’s only what I heard, I don’t really know, I don’t know why you are getting upset with me, I’m not even sure it’s true to be honest, I don’t really pay close attention to politics” when I get irritated at them about their type of engagement.
Do you have a source for this ? Just trying to understand
🤡
A lot of people don’t know what it is which the sealions use to their advantage so recognising it is a sealion’s kryptonite lol. glad it helped!
This is just used to shut people down who have legitimate complaints. Like, replace ‘sealions’ with ‘black people’ in the comic, and I would be surprised to find many people who still think it’s ok.
Nice idea, but not sure I’ll follow. Nowadays I just try to ignore sealions and move on.
I didn’t know it had a name. I have seen this so much on Lemmy lately.
No offense, but where have you seen this? I haven’t noticed anything like this
Lol, good one.
When done “well”, you can find yourself lured into a long, increasingly exasperating conversation. You can never win by engaging. I just ignore them and move on.
This should be called “fur sealing.” I’d like to see some proof that sealioning is the correct term. A Wikipedia article is inadequate. I am not against the community, I just want the term fur sealing to get a fair shake here.
