3 ms·

I don't doubt that this is an actual thing. It also sounds like a thought-terminating cliche, useful when the accused won't let you off the hook for saying some

I don't doubt that this is an actual thing. It also sounds like a thought-terminating cliche, useful when the accused won't let you off the hook for saying something wrong, but it is too painful to admit it.

jfengel 6y ago
It's both. Ultimately, the Internet has no arbitrator to enforce the rules of argumentation. By the time you're reduced to arguing about the rules, no progress is going to be made. I consider that primarily a reason to cease engaging entirely. When you believe you're being sea-lioned, you don't really need to call it out. People who do are hoping for some sort of closure, but they aren't going to get it. You may be correct, or you may be merely trying your own dishonest means to win, but either way nothing productive is going to happen. The best you can do is remind yourself that nobody actually cares. That's really hard to remember when somebody declares: "You've failed to supply the evidence therefore I win by default". Troll tactics rely on you feeling bad about losing in public, and believing that your side has lost adherents. Effectively, they've won before you've even started when you believe that the only way to win is for them to concede that you've supported yours side sufficiently. They will always be able to simply declare that you lost, one way or another. The only way to avoid that is to not play at all. And the realization of sea-lioning is useful in that. It doesn't win an argument. Rather, it's your self-recognition that you will lose if you say anything else, and it's not worth your time. The sooner you forget about it, the faster you regain equilibrium. Even stopping to declare "No thanks, sea lion" doesn't really help unless you have the ability to shut down replies. That can also be used badly, to be sure. It can be a troll tactic, and you deal as you would with other trolls. And it can be used to fool yourself; in the absence of an arbitrator you can't really know when you're missing a sincere argument. But I'd advise erring on the side of abandoning any arguments early, since it's never as important as you imagine it is. Even if you've failed to recognize a serious critique, you'll hear it again some day, probably soon. Sincere self reflection, offline, will bring you good answers faster than bashing yourself out against an army of trolls.
- w1zard0f0z 6y ago
  When everyone starts avoiding answering challenges to their opinion we end up in a highly divided society, where there is no understanding for the other points of view and no common ground. I think this is visible already in our world. There's a fine blurry line between challenges that address essential aspects of an idea and those that divert attention to minute details or go on tangents. I would say the ideal attitude would be to try and answer a couple of such "attacks" or explaining why they are besides the point.

jfengel 6y ago

It's both. Ultimately, the Internet has no arbitrator to enforce the rules of argumentation. By the time you're reduced to arguing about the rules, no progress is going to be made. I consider that primarily a reason to cease engaging entirely. When you believe you're being sea-lioned, you don't really need to call it out. People who do are hoping for some sort of closure, but they aren't going to get it. You may be correct, or you may be merely trying your own dishonest means to win, but either way nothing productive is going to happen. The best you can do is remind yourself that nobody actually cares. That's really hard to remember when somebody declares: "You've failed to supply the evidence therefore I win by default". Troll tactics rely on you feeling bad about losing in public, and believing that your side has lost adherents. Effectively, they've won before you've even started when you believe that the only way to win is for them to concede that you've supported yours side sufficiently. They will always be able to simply declare that you lost, one way or another. The only way to avoid that is to not play at all. And the realization of sea-lioning is useful in that. It doesn't win an argument. Rather, it's your self-recognition that you will lose if you say anything else, and it's not worth your time. The sooner you forget about it, the faster you regain equilibrium. Even stopping to declare "No thanks, sea lion" doesn't really help unless you have the ability to shut down replies. That can also be used badly, to be sure. It can be a troll tactic, and you deal as you would with other trolls. And it can be used to fool yourself; in the absence of an arbitrator you can't really know when you're missing a sincere argument. But I'd advise erring on the side of abandoning any arguments early, since it's never as important as you imagine it is. Even if you've failed to recognize a serious critique, you'll hear it again some day, probably soon. Sincere self reflection, offline, will bring you good answers faster than bashing yourself out against an army of trolls.

w1zard0f0z 6y ago
When everyone starts avoiding answering challenges to their opinion we end up in a highly divided society, where there is no understanding for the other points of view and no common ground. I think this is visible already in our world. There's a fine blurry line between challenges that address essential aspects of an idea and those that divert attention to minute details or go on tangents. I would say the ideal attitude would be to try and answer a couple of such "attacks" or explaining why they are besides the point.