4 ms·

And I don’t want to debate. The sickening part of political discourse is how often people will eagerly explain their beliefs without any willingness to listen,

And I don’t want to debate. The sickening part of political discourse is how often people will eagerly explain their beliefs without any willingness to listen, investigate, or understand other perspectives.

zyxley 11y ago
In the particular context given, it seems more like an attempt to say "I will not submit to sealioning under the flag of reasoned debate". Mind you, that's not saying that the perception of sealioning is necessarily correct, but it certainly reads to me like the perception is there.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  I was not familiar with the term "sealioning" until I looked it up[1]. Frankly it sounds like an name you call your opponent when your not-so-well-thought-out ideas can't withstand debate or criticism. A: I think the moon is made of cheese. B: Why do you think that? Do you know of any evidence? A: Sea-lioning! I will not debate you!! 1: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/
  - zyxley 11y ago
    It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. It's a method used by a lot of "polite" internet harrassment and forum trolls, for example, by demanding that people re-justify themselves on things that have already been discussed to death. An example in practice is the talk page for Gamergate on Wikipedia, where organized brigades of trolls spent so much time re-asking the same questions over and over that at least for a while (I haven't checked if it's still the case) the mods there started topic-banning anyone who posted something already answered in the FAQ on the page.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. No, it really isn't. Here's the real backstory of "sealioning": Group A made some assertions. Group B refused to accept their assertions. Group A decided that what was called for was yet another in a long list of mechanisms for dismissing and invalidating criticism. And here we are. You can't just wave a hand, or a rhetorical gimmick lifted from a webcomic, and make your critics go away. They will never go away. There are still people who think that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are dangerous. If you hurl abuse at them and find tricks like the "sealioning" accusation to dismiss them, you're just sinking below their level and making them look like the rational ones. A better policy: let the fools ask their foolish questions. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, and all the fools will accomplish is inadvertently help you educate the onlookers.
- hsod 11y ago
  That perception seems necessarily incorrect to me, since the Master is defending himself directly against accusations from the students. Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. To dismiss the defense as Sea Lioning would be to demand he simply accept your censure and bow to your demands, entirely robbing him of his agency.
  - zyxley 11y ago
    > Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. That's what that email (very politely) did, though, didn't it? However well-intended it was meant, it was a reply to "please be considerate about your costumes" with (to paraphrase much more bluntly) "well, why should we care about college students being offensive or inoffensive?". It's the kind of thing that is worth discussing in the abstract, but it would be hard to argue it's not tangential to the original topic.
    - gozo 11y ago
      I just have no idea how he though publishing this rant wouldn't undermine his position as Master, especially since his wife is the Associate Master. The answer is he probably didn't think, which doesn't exactly work in his favor. It's almost like he is being schooled in politics by the students. There's a reason why you usually have a number of co-signers on these things.
    - cxseven 11y ago
      Did we read the same email? It's at https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/ https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing... "I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students." The original email coaching students on acceptable costumes had 13 signatures from Yale administrators and faculty. Erika's email was NOT asking why anyone should care, it was asking why the students should not be their own agents.

zyxley 11y ago

In the particular context given, it seems more like an attempt to say "I will not submit to sealioning under the flag of reasoned debate". Mind you, that's not saying that the perception of sealioning is necessarily correct, but it certainly reads to me like the perception is there.

ryandrake 11y ago
I was not familiar with the term "sealioning" until I looked it up[1]. Frankly it sounds like an name you call your opponent when your not-so-well-thought-out ideas can't withstand debate or criticism. A: I think the moon is made of cheese. B: Why do you think that? Do you know of any evidence? A: Sea-lioning! I will not debate you!! 1: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/
- zyxley 11y ago
  It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. It's a method used by a lot of "polite" internet harrassment and forum trolls, for example, by demanding that people re-justify themselves on things that have already been discussed to death. An example in practice is the talk page for Gamergate on Wikipedia, where organized brigades of trolls spent so much time re-asking the same questions over and over that at least for a while (I haven't checked if it's still the case) the mods there started topic-banning anyone who posted something already answered in the FAQ on the page.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    > It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. No, it really isn't. Here's the real backstory of "sealioning": Group A made some assertions. Group B refused to accept their assertions. Group A decided that what was called for was yet another in a long list of mechanisms for dismissing and invalidating criticism. And here we are. You can't just wave a hand, or a rhetorical gimmick lifted from a webcomic, and make your critics go away. They will never go away. There are still people who think that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are dangerous. If you hurl abuse at them and find tricks like the "sealioning" accusation to dismiss them, you're just sinking below their level and making them look like the rational ones. A better policy: let the fools ask their foolish questions. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, and all the fools will accomplish is inadvertently help you educate the onlookers.
hsod 11y ago
That perception seems necessarily incorrect to me, since the Master is defending himself directly against accusations from the students. Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. To dismiss the defense as Sea Lioning would be to demand he simply accept your censure and bow to your demands, entirely robbing him of his agency.
- zyxley 11y ago
  > Sea Lioning, as I understand it, refers to a person derailing a discussion to which they are not a direct party. That's what that email (very politely) did, though, didn't it? However well-intended it was meant, it was a reply to "please be considerate about your costumes" with (to paraphrase much more bluntly) "well, why should we care about college students being offensive or inoffensive?". It's the kind of thing that is worth discussing in the abstract, but it would be hard to argue it's not tangential to the original topic.
  - gozo 11y ago
    I just have no idea how he though publishing this rant wouldn't undermine his position as Master, especially since his wife is the Associate Master. The answer is he probably didn't think, which doesn't exactly work in his favor. It's almost like he is being schooled in politics by the students. There's a reason why you usually have a number of co-signers on these things.
  - cxseven 11y ago
    Did we read the same email? It's at https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/ https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing... "I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students." The original email coaching students on acceptable costumes had 13 signatures from Yale administrators and faculty. Erika's email was NOT asking why anyone should care, it was asking why the students should not be their own agents.