4 ms·

I think it really depends. It needs to be used in good faith. I have seen "burden of proof" requests made in the case of very obvious common knowledge type of i

I think it really depends. It needs to be used in good faith. I have seen "burden of proof" requests made in the case of very obvious common knowledge type of information, which is a red herring. But if you see an outlandish claim that you suspect is not backed up by credible evidence, I don't see asking for proof as a red herring at all. It's necessary to keep people honest. > If you think an opinion is incredibly ignorant or utterly depraved you aren’t forced to engage it by feeding the troll. Attempting to kill the bad opinion through lazy evidence requests just contributes an alternate form of trolling. This holds up in internet discussions, but not in all dialogues. For example, scientists and politicians could do terribly stupid/harmful/wasteful things if they aren't held accountable for demonstrably false statements.

austincheney 8y ago
Then ask a well reasoned question. There is no burden of proof on questions. Compensating for weak communication by making evidence requests is less helpful than it sounds.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Then ask a well reasoned question. Only to get accused on 'sealioning' which itself I've observed tends to become a red herring all of its own. I hold the opinion that on the grounds presented in the original comic[1] that spawned the term, it's been a red herring from the start. Though that's just opinion. [1] http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Red herrings are distractions or tangents. Asking questions is not sea lioning. Sea lioning is bad faith requests for sources. https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Avoiding_Trolls.md#citation-baiting https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Avoiding_Tr...
    - davvolun 8y ago
      > either cannot find the energy to do their own research So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research, but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Nope, no. This is shifting the blame. If you make a fact-based assertion ("access to guns saves lives"/"access to guns kills more people"), you need to be prepared to back up that assertion to give people a starting point. Is your assertion based on opinion, are you saying that based on a survey conducted by viewer on Fox & Friends, or was it a formal study conducted by an accredited researcher?
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research, but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Nope, no. This is shifting the blame. That's the entirety of my problem with the term "sea lioning", even in the comic that spawned the phrase/meme we see this happening. Person makes a pretty wide and generalized statement about sea lions, and a sea lion politely asks for an explanation. I suppose maybe I'm just not surprised to see how conveniently it gets ignored that the entire conceit begins with a completely unfounded position that can't very well exist in a vacuum. The Sea Lion was right to demand an explanation.
        davvolun 8y ago
        I don't know that I can entirely agree. There is a nuance to sealioning that the comic doesn't get into. I think the difference between reasoned discussion and sealioning is beginning from a good faith argument versus bad faith. If I say "sealions suck," and you ask me "what's your evidence for that," you aren't necessarily sealioning -- yet. I will agree there is a thin line, but that's how trolling works across the spectrum. If it was actually easy to troll well, it would probably be easy to block or filter. I think there's also a problem in the comic with the premise that isn't entirely explained -- "Sealions suck" wasn't an invitation to debate the issue. For a more real situation, if I see a feminist on Twitter exclaim "men suck!!!" and I respond with "well, what's your rationale for saying that" then I think I can definitively say that's sealioning, right off the bat. Sometimes you just need to blow off steam, and I think that's as okay to do on social media as it is anywhere else; not everything is an invitation to debate.

austincheney 8y ago

Then ask a well reasoned question. There is no burden of proof on questions. Compensating for weak communication by making evidence requests is less helpful than it sounds.

dvtrn 8y ago
Then ask a well reasoned question. Only to get accused on 'sealioning' which itself I've observed tends to become a red herring all of its own. I hold the opinion that on the grounds presented in the original comic[1] that spawned the term, it's been a red herring from the start. Though that's just opinion. [1] http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
- austincheney 8y ago
  Red herrings are distractions or tangents. Asking questions is not sea lioning. Sea lioning is bad faith requests for sources. https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Avoiding_Trolls.md#citation-baiting https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Avoiding_Tr...
  - davvolun 8y ago
    > either cannot find the energy to do their own research So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research, but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Nope, no. This is shifting the blame. If you make a fact-based assertion ("access to guns saves lives"/"access to guns kills more people"), you need to be prepared to back up that assertion to give people a starting point. Is your assertion based on opinion, are you saying that based on a survey conducted by viewer on Fox & Friends, or was it a formal study conducted by an accredited researcher?
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research, but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Nope, no. This is shifting the blame. That's the entirety of my problem with the term "sea lioning", even in the comic that spawned the phrase/meme we see this happening. Person makes a pretty wide and generalized statement about sea lions, and a sea lion politely asks for an explanation. I suppose maybe I'm just not surprised to see how conveniently it gets ignored that the entire conceit begins with a completely unfounded position that can't very well exist in a vacuum. The Sea Lion was right to demand an explanation.
      - davvolun 8y ago
        I don't know that I can entirely agree. There is a nuance to sealioning that the comic doesn't get into. I think the difference between reasoned discussion and sealioning is beginning from a good faith argument versus bad faith. If I say "sealions suck," and you ask me "what's your evidence for that," you aren't necessarily sealioning -- yet. I will agree there is a thin line, but that's how trolling works across the spectrum. If it was actually easy to troll well, it would probably be easy to block or filter. I think there's also a problem in the comic with the premise that isn't entirely explained -- "Sealions suck" wasn't an invitation to debate the issue. For a more real situation, if I see a feminist on Twitter exclaim "men suck!!!" and I respond with "well, what's your rationale for saying that" then I think I can definitively say that's sealioning, right off the bat. Sometimes you just need to blow off steam, and I think that's as okay to do on social media as it is anywhere else; not everything is an invitation to debate.