4 ms·
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. Thi
by 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 agoI 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.