4 ms·

> 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 kno

> 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
> So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research Yes. It is the difference between a strong assertion and a weak assertion. > but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Then they aren't asking the correct questions. I have absolutely no sympathy for people with weak communications skills.
- davvolun 8y ago
  A "strong assertion" versus a "weak assertion" has no bearing on the burden of proof. An assertion requires evidence. This isn't a communication issue. If I make an assertion, and someone asks me where I'm getting that information from, if I can't or won't provide an answer, it's not worth your time to debate. If you make an assertion in a debate, you need to be able to back it up. Period. When Trump says "many people are saying," he doesn't get a free pass on providing evidence to support his case because he said it first. This isn't the playground.

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

> So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research Yes. It is the difference between a strong assertion and a weak assertion. > but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Then they aren't asking the correct questions. I have absolutely no sympathy for people with weak communications skills.

davvolun 8y ago
A "strong assertion" versus a "weak assertion" has no bearing on the burden of proof. An assertion requires evidence. This isn't a communication issue. If I make an assertion, and someone asks me where I'm getting that information from, if I can't or won't provide an answer, it's not worth your time to debate. If you make an assertion in a debate, you need to be able to back it up. Period. When Trump says "many people are saying," he doesn't get a free pass on providing evidence to support his case because he said it first. This isn't the playground.