"Sealioning" is almost as bad as "whataboutism." I've seen the comic and I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean - is it when you call out racism instead of letting it go unchallenged? And this is presented as a bad thing, for some reason??
You can't just make up words and use them to denounce things that are legit.
The longer version of its original intended use can be called "bad-faith questioning," the kind where liberals passive-aggressively-politely demand proof of something they disagree with and then without fail reject any evidence given because it doesn't agree with what they already believe.
Ok so if for example someone says, "Hexbear is exactly like 4chan" and I ask them to substantiate that, and all they have is stupid bullshit that I reject, am I sealioning? If they accuse me of sealioning, do I have a response other than saying, "sealioning is made up internet bullshit?"
OUR refutation of baseless accusations. THEIR bad faith sealioning tactics.
I've never had occasion to accuse someone of "sealioning" because if I make an accusation and someone asks me to substantiate it, I either provide evidence or back down. The only context where you can talk shit and dismiss pushback is if you're bullying someone, and trying to bully someone while using the term "sealioning" just comes across as peak smuglord.
This has always been my gripe with internet buzzwords and phrases. A lot of the time they're invented for a legitimate thing but once it's out there you can't control it and people will misuse and misinterpret it (often for their own clout), and then the use in the original context becomes discredited.
I think if you read the Sealion comic as specifically a parody about the alt-right, it's alright, but the moment you start talking about "sealioning" as if it's a generalizable logical fallacy or something it completely falls apart (I doubt it was ever intended to be read that way either). It's about as serious of a criticism as putting the other side's position next to a crying wojak.
I think I figured out the main problem with sealioning specifically. Usually the person represented by the Victorian humans in that comic simply state their position, and then an argument of some type ensues- it's rare that something correct is also too abstract to explain, especially when you have time to type it out on the internet.
It's also generally used in contexts where both parties are choosing to engage. That's like, the main bad thing the sea lion does in the comic, and it's like, if you can't eat breakfast because people are trying to debate you on the internet, maybe try putting the phone down.
Most of the time I've seen it used is when someone is doing something to vent, like posting "ugh men", and then someone comes in trying to start an argument with the actually not all men schtick. And if you refuse to engage they'll reply to entirely unrelated stuff trying to argue the same thing (which is what is implied by the breakfast scene).
Specifically used in the same way that most people on here dunk on reddit debatebros.
That's the "legitimate use" I mentioned, but I don't know I have ever actually seen it used that way in practice. It's so easy for debatebros to misuse it to win an argument and that useage has far eclipsed the meaning you mentioned. I'm used to dismissing any and all claims of "sealioning" so saying something like "they're refusing to disengage," or, "they're following me around the site" are much better because they're not wrapped up in an ambiguous and frequently misused term. At this point, I think the "legitimate use" meaning basically only exists to justify the term.
Search "sealioning" on Hexbear and you can find plenty of accusations towards people who are not engaging in what you described. The problem is that the sea lion does multiple things in the comic, calling out an insult (good), asking for evidence (fine), and following them around (bad), and so if the only actually bad thing is following them around, then just say that instead of the more ambiguous term - the only reason to use the more ambiguous term is to characterize someone doing the first two as doing the third, even if they're not.
I'll also point out that I was given a definition previously in this thread that made zero mention of following people around.
From what I remember, the comic was made during the height of Gamer Gate and made popular to call out Gamers who would basically demand citations for the bad or lacking representation or depictions of minorities in gaming or other issues
I just wish it was more clearly about that specifically. As it stands, it can be read as, "My dislike of [group] is justified by how [group] reacts when I express my dislike of them" which can be really problematic when talking about things like race, gender, etc. And the metaphor is made worse by the fact that "being a sea lion" is an innate trait, not a choice.
I thought it was about verbally affirming civility long past the point where it's become clear that the interaction is hostile. I feel like the sealion is justified, but would be better served with a, "Fuck did I just hear you say about sealions, you piece of shit?"
This is like the third definition I've heard and I think it really highlights how ambiguous it is to define a word based on a comic as opposed to an actual definition. Some people think it's about civility like you said, other people think it's about bad faith requests for a source like Ulysses said, and still other people think it's about following someone around to other threads and refusing to disengage like someone else said. This is why I say I have no idea what it means, despite having seen the comic and seeing the word used in various contexts. I hate it.
"Sealioning" is almost as bad as "whataboutism." I've seen the comic and I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean - is it when you call out racism instead of letting it go unchallenged? And this is presented as a bad thing, for some reason??
You can't just make up words and use them to denounce things that are legit.
The longer version of its original intended use can be called "bad-faith questioning," the kind where liberals passive-aggressively-politely demand proof of something they disagree with and then without fail reject any evidence given because it doesn't agree with what they already believe.
Ok so if for example someone says, "Hexbear is exactly like 4chan" and I ask them to substantiate that, and all they have is stupid bullshit that I reject, am I sealioning? If they accuse me of sealioning, do I have a response other than saying, "sealioning is made up internet bullshit?"
OUR refutation of baseless accusations. THEIR bad faith sealioning tactics.
I've never had occasion to accuse someone of "sealioning" because if I make an accusation and someone asks me to substantiate it, I either provide evidence or back down. The only context where you can talk shit and dismiss pushback is if you're bullying someone, and trying to bully someone while using the term "sealioning" just comes across as peak smuglord.
Yeah it seems like sealioning could be a thing but it's much easier to use it disingenuously. Exactly like whataboutism.
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
This has always been my gripe with internet buzzwords and phrases. A lot of the time they're invented for a legitimate thing but once it's out there you can't control it and people will misuse and misinterpret it (often for their own clout), and then the use in the original context becomes discredited.
I think if you read the Sealion comic as specifically a parody about the alt-right, it's alright, but the moment you start talking about "sealioning" as if it's a generalizable logical fallacy or something it completely falls apart (I doubt it was ever intended to be read that way either). It's about as serious of a criticism as putting the other side's position next to a crying wojak.
I think I figured out the main problem with sealioning specifically. Usually the person represented by the Victorian humans in that comic simply state their position, and then an argument of some type ensues- it's rare that something correct is also too abstract to explain, especially when you have time to type it out on the internet.
It's also generally used in contexts where both parties are choosing to engage. That's like, the main bad thing the sea lion does in the comic, and it's like, if you can't eat breakfast because people are trying to debate you on the internet, maybe try putting the phone down.
Most of the time I've seen it used is when someone is doing something to vent, like posting "ugh men", and then someone comes in trying to start an argument with the actually not all men schtick. And if you refuse to engage they'll reply to entirely unrelated stuff trying to argue the same thing (which is what is implied by the breakfast scene).
Specifically used in the same way that most people on here dunk on reddit debatebros.
That's the "legitimate use" I mentioned, but I don't know I have ever actually seen it used that way in practice. It's so easy for debatebros to misuse it to win an argument and that useage has far eclipsed the meaning you mentioned. I'm used to dismissing any and all claims of "sealioning" so saying something like "they're refusing to disengage," or, "they're following me around the site" are much better because they're not wrapped up in an ambiguous and frequently misused term. At this point, I think the "legitimate use" meaning basically only exists to justify the term.
Search "sealioning" on Hexbear and you can find plenty of accusations towards people who are not engaging in what you described. The problem is that the sea lion does multiple things in the comic, calling out an insult (good), asking for evidence (fine), and following them around (bad), and so if the only actually bad thing is following them around, then just say that instead of the more ambiguous term - the only reason to use the more ambiguous term is to characterize someone doing the first two as doing the third, even if they're not.
I'll also point out that I was given a definition previously in this thread that made zero mention of following people around.
From what I remember, the comic was made during the height of Gamer Gate and made popular to call out Gamers who would basically demand citations for the bad or lacking representation or depictions of minorities in gaming or other issues
I just wish it was more clearly about that specifically. As it stands, it can be read as, "My dislike of [group] is justified by how [group] reacts when I express my dislike of them" which can be really problematic when talking about things like race, gender, etc. And the metaphor is made worse by the fact that "being a sea lion" is an innate trait, not a choice.
I thought it was about verbally affirming civility long past the point where it's become clear that the interaction is hostile. I feel like the sealion is justified, but would be better served with a, "Fuck did I just hear you say about sealions, you piece of shit?"
This is like the third definition I've heard and I think it really highlights how ambiguous it is to define a word based on a comic as opposed to an actual definition. Some people think it's about civility like you said, other people think it's about bad faith requests for a source like Ulysses said, and still other people think it's about following someone around to other threads and refusing to disengage like someone else said. This is why I say I have no idea what it means, despite having seen the comic and seeing the word used in various contexts. I hate it.
You're right. Even though I uphold its role in anti-Gamer action, it's basically just a rorschach test