601
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
601 points (92.3% liked)
politics
19296 readers
1795 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Textbook sealioning.
Legit question. Is sea lioning the same as trolling? Or is it more specific? I have only heard of the term recently.
It's a specific form of trolling/bad-faith argument based on this comic. The idea behind sealioning is that you feign politeness and badger someone with seemingly-simple questions (that in reality require spending a sizable amount of time to answer) to get them to try to debate you. This can take the form of asking someone to elaborate a point, or provide citations to support a claim. If the victim takes the bait and responds legitimately, the troll ignores most of the message, claims any citations are invalid for some reason (biased source, misrepresenting what the article says, or just ignoring it exists entirely). The troll then cherry picks a few statements, and asks more questions about those, continuing the cycle, If the victim refers to previous posts, the troll pretends it either didn't happen or didn't actually answer their question (it did). If the victim refers to previously linked articles, the troll dismisses them and insists the victim provides "better" articles (that the troll will also dismiss out of hand). If the victim ever tells the troll to fuck off, the troll claims the moral high road and says they just "want a civil discussion" and "reasoned debate" over the topic.
The goal is something like a reverse Gish Gallop. Where a gish gallop aims to overwhelm the victim with more arguments than can be addressed quickly in the hope that your opponent can't/won't take the time to respond and walk away, allowing you to claim victory, sealioning aims to trick the victim into spending hours writing a messages that you can respond to in under a minute with a few simple questions, creating a kind of denial-of-service attack.
Cool. Thanks.
Yeah, happy to help. Sealioning really fucking sucks, because the only ways to counter it are:
Insult the troll until they go away
Refuse to play their game and give short, pithy responses without doing any research (or not linking the research you did)
Ignore the troll entirely
Copy your response and paste it whenever you see the troll asking the same question (which someone is doing in this very thread)
Create and maintain a collection of ready-to-go arguments with citations that you can copy/paste at the drop of a hat, which is a fair bit of work in of itself
In case it's not obvious, most of the counters for sealioning look almost exactly like trolling itself, and it's almost impossible to tell a sealion from someone apart looking for a legitimate discussion at first glance--short of keeping track of individual usernames and watching them in multiple threads, the only way to know if someone is a sealion for sure is for at least one person to feed the troll at least one good response. It's what makes sealioning such an insidious technique, because fighting a sealion almost always results in a lower quality of discussion itself, giving the sealion another type of victory.
There seems to be one other problem too. Someone can legitimately be inept. There is no real proof that someone doesn't feel that way and is acting in good faith and just cannot comprehend what is being discussed.
Thanks for the break down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
That comic link was good, too.
LMFAO where did you even get this
That was the origin of the term sealioning.
Idk why I'm being downvoted, shits hilarious.
Acknowledging that you wrren't aware of something obscure gets downvotes. It is stupid, but that's how the internet works.
seems to me they are not saying they are the same, but that they are both doing bad things.
ah, you weren't being genuine
this can't be proven
I made a good point, you just don't like it
I can't even imagine pretending to be this stupid lol
spamming your (irrelevant) links is not the mark of genuine engagement.
pot meet kettle
“If you have evidence, show me!”
“No, not like that!!!!”
bothesidesing is not necessarily saying they are the same. i don't recall ever seeing someone actually say both sides are the same.
Your in-/ability to recall information is not evidence.
In fact, why don't you prove to us that you can't recall information. Please.
Your original statement is a negative that "must be proven". What is the purpose of your insistence in this discussion?
https://kolektiva.social/users/bigMouthCommie/statuses/112181077173838043
that doesn't say they are the same
It’s a shame this comment is so far down because it is an incredible burn
You literally said "both sides are bad" in what I linked. You can continue to try to argue the semantics of your exact phrasing and vocabulary, but your intention is both clear and insufferable, no matter how much you try to deny it.
it's bad to have your arm hacked off with a hatchet or sliced off with a chainsaw. they are not the same, though.