5 ms·

It sounds like this person got sick of “Sea Lioning” — where you make a statement of opinion and are harangued into backing it up in detail, and if you won’t (o

It sounds like this person got sick of “Sea Lioning” — where you make a statement of opinion and are harangued into backing it up in detail, and if you won’t (or you do, but it’s not to the sea-lioner’s taste) you’re basically called a liar, idiot, or something worse. It’s especially annoying when you’re a subject matter expert and the people you’re arguing with are not - often they don’t even have the requisite knowledge to understand the salience of your arguments so you either have to dumb everything down (at which point you’re now arguing with some analogy) or provide a litany of background data which is time consuming and unlikely to be read or understood by the people arguing with you.

blowski 6y ago
In case anyone's wondering, the name comes from this cartoon: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  For reference, the couple in that cartoon are racists.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    See the errata http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/ http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/
    - chews 6y ago
      this errata get's a chef's kiss.
    - st_goliath 6y ago
      Huh, this whole situation just reminded me of an Erich Kästner novel I read as a child ("Pünktchen und Anton"). It had interludes between some of the chapters that were written in cursive font, where the author summarizes what just happened and discusses the characters motives, the implications of their actions and sometimes alludes to personal anecdotes. In the prologue of the book he wrote that the story is about serious topics he would like to get children to think about, and decided to add the notes for some children who aren't exactly great at that thinking part. In hindsight phrased rather directly and condescendingly (I just looked it up to double check), but I think quite fitting to the situation here, seeing the cartoon first and then reading the clarification. It's IMO very sad if a cartoonist has to explain the rather thin symbolism because enough people "don't get it" and go directly to pointing and screaming "racist bigots".
      - debacle 6y ago
        I wonder if there is a corollary to the "If everyone you meet is an asshole" maxim when it comes to injected political opinions.
        LanceH 6y ago
        The thing is that we're at a point where I can't tell if you're talking about someone who is always complaining about being accused of being racist, or the people who are always complaining about everything being racist.
        fl-gl 6y ago
        "I don't think you've properly thought this through." LMAO
      - Lammy 6y ago
        I read the cartoon and even read the clarification: “Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics.” Sounds exactly like the sort of thing I’d expect to hear from somebody who really wanted to show me some FBI crime statistics :p
  - tester34 6y ago
    whats wrong w/ that? its art
busterarm 6y ago
Oh my gosh, I have never heard this term in my life before but it explains so many of my experiences.
switch007 6y ago
Do you have any evidence of that being the case? /me barks
bachmeier 6y ago
> you make a statement of opinion and are harangued into backing it up in detail I really wish this attitude would disappear from the internet. If you make an assertion, you should be prepared to provide the details. Nobody is forcing anyone to make statements of "opinion" in a public forum with high visibility. If you don't want to provide support for your argument, all you have to do is not post. Ironically, you posted this on HN, where there is an expectation of doing exactly that, and for good reason. Edit: Since this comment seems to bother lots of people, note the quotes around "opinion" and my use of the word "assertion". My problem with the parent comment is that misinformation can slip into comments that are phrased as opinions.
- newacct583 6y ago
  That's missing the point. Sealioning doesn't mean "provide details", it's shorthand for an argumentation tactic, which enables its practitioners to argue successfully "against" a position without evidence simply by demanding evidence from someone else. Someone coming in to sealion a discussion doesn't actually want the discussion to be had on the basis of details (because if they did, they would be providing some). They want to shut the other person down without having to go through that trouble. Essentially, sealioning (as understood in this context) in an attempt to suppress dissent. And that's bad, no matter what tactic is employed.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    I like to see sealioning as going "why? why? why? why?" (now say that with sealion sounds). They may appear to be questions, but they're not really.
  - Grinnz 6y ago
    I don't see this having occurred in either direction. An assertion was made, contradicting details were provided, and then it became emotional due to past interactions.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    Sealioning is totally a thing. Another thing (which to my knowledge doesn't have a well-known name) is accusing someone of sealioning as a way to deflect from having said something that could really use to be supported, while refusing to support it. "Pi is not transcendental!" "Wow really, I'd love to see the proof of that!" "You're just sealioning!" I'm not making any claim about which of these two patterns is more common or a bigger problem, but both things totally exist.
xwolfi 6y ago
Yeah but it's very classical. People come in many variations: between the religious autists, the emotional ragers, the ashamed paranoids, the hiding incompetents, the coward wises, the hungry juniors, etc, we've all seen them each time we try a shy challenge of an established practice. Especially in IT where you can survive a little bit longer with absolutely no ability for politeness or compromise. I think the guy got a bit too emotional over that, maybe because he cares too much ? At some point you have to let go: you're not alone, and you don't have enough support ? It's your fault for thinking human relationship are about truth and reality rather than exchanges of favor and networks of influence. Let it go this time, build a support network, come back with the proposal and see who whines the loudest. No point stepping down or leaving in shame.
wott 6y ago
> It sounds like this person got sick of “Sea Lioning” It's more like some other people got sick of that guy coming up with baseless assumptions, and (more importantly) baseless assertions, in order to support his goals; and a few of them don't let that go any more. Because that's a constant pattern for him (he's been Perl's pumpking for several years, and then part of the ruling trio since the change in the governance system caused by the aftermaths of the announcement of his Perl 7 "plan"): he comes up with a change, or a plan like the Perl 7 plan, something that on the surface seems researched and based, and then... he backpedals because he is unable to sustain his claims, or he is proven wrong by people who actually know what they are talking about (with testimonies of recognised people, data, facts forming a consensus), or it becomes clear he didn't study the consequences of his planned changes (again, other people have to put up with the work needed to study that). And sometimes, after a consensus has emerged and he either (seemingly) caved in or played possum (after all, both are more or less fine in a real human interaction, no need to publicly acknowledge every "defeat"), he comes back with the same points which have already been disproven. For example, this time he was arguing with some invisible authority arguments. While real data, real testimony of trustable people is sitting there and say the opposite. Since I follow Perl 5 mailing lists in the recent years, he exhibits that same behavioural pattern. He probably doesn't even do it on purpose, he probably means well, he probably thinks his propositions are well researched and all. But he doesn't learn to do better for the next time. Also, yesterday or 2 days ago, the Steering Committee trio of which he is part decided that for Perl 7, the decision would be to side more with the majority of Perl 5 core developers (that's a manner of saying it which is very abridged, but well...), than with his original plan. So you've got to keep in mind that his burst comes after what he probably felt like a disavowal, and this might be either the real reason, or a fair part of the reasons, rather than this alleged sea-lioning.
- lilSebastian 6y ago
  Thanks for the accurate and considerate response. Interesting to see the comments from people with no exposure to the people or situation.
  - wott 6y ago

blowski 6y ago

In case anyone's wondering, the name comes from this cartoon: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/

fennecfoxen 6y ago
For reference, the couple in that cartoon are racists.
- viraptor 6y ago
  See the errata http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/ http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/
  - chews 6y ago
    this errata get's a chef's kiss.
  - st_goliath 6y ago
    Huh, this whole situation just reminded me of an Erich Kästner novel I read as a child ("Pünktchen und Anton"). It had interludes between some of the chapters that were written in cursive font, where the author summarizes what just happened and discusses the characters motives, the implications of their actions and sometimes alludes to personal anecdotes. In the prologue of the book he wrote that the story is about serious topics he would like to get children to think about, and decided to add the notes for some children who aren't exactly great at that thinking part. In hindsight phrased rather directly and condescendingly (I just looked it up to double check), but I think quite fitting to the situation here, seeing the cartoon first and then reading the clarification. It's IMO very sad if a cartoonist has to explain the rather thin symbolism because enough people "don't get it" and go directly to pointing and screaming "racist bigots".
    - debacle 6y ago
      I wonder if there is a corollary to the "If everyone you meet is an asshole" maxim when it comes to injected political opinions.
      - LanceH 6y ago
        The thing is that we're at a point where I can't tell if you're talking about someone who is always complaining about being accused of being racist, or the people who are always complaining about everything being racist.
      - fl-gl 6y ago
        "I don't think you've properly thought this through." LMAO
    - Lammy 6y ago
      I read the cartoon and even read the clarification: “Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics.” Sounds exactly like the sort of thing I’d expect to hear from somebody who really wanted to show me some FBI crime statistics :p
- tester34 6y ago
  whats wrong w/ that? its art

busterarm 6y ago

Oh my gosh, I have never heard this term in my life before but it explains so many of my experiences.

switch007 6y ago

Do you have any evidence of that being the case? /me barks

bachmeier 6y ago

> you make a statement of opinion and are harangued into backing it up in detail I really wish this attitude would disappear from the internet. If you make an assertion, you should be prepared to provide the details. Nobody is forcing anyone to make statements of "opinion" in a public forum with high visibility. If you don't want to provide support for your argument, all you have to do is not post. Ironically, you posted this on HN, where there is an expectation of doing exactly that, and for good reason. Edit: Since this comment seems to bother lots of people, note the quotes around "opinion" and my use of the word "assertion". My problem with the parent comment is that misinformation can slip into comments that are phrased as opinions.

newacct583 6y ago
That's missing the point. Sealioning doesn't mean "provide details", it's shorthand for an argumentation tactic, which enables its practitioners to argue successfully "against" a position without evidence simply by demanding evidence from someone else. Someone coming in to sealion a discussion doesn't actually want the discussion to be had on the basis of details (because if they did, they would be providing some). They want to shut the other person down without having to go through that trouble. Essentially, sealioning (as understood in this context) in an attempt to suppress dissent. And that's bad, no matter what tactic is employed.
- vidarh 6y ago
  I like to see sealioning as going "why? why? why? why?" (now say that with sealion sounds). They may appear to be questions, but they're not really.
- Grinnz 6y ago
  I don't see this having occurred in either direction. An assertion was made, contradicting details were provided, and then it became emotional due to past interactions.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  Sealioning is totally a thing. Another thing (which to my knowledge doesn't have a well-known name) is accusing someone of sealioning as a way to deflect from having said something that could really use to be supported, while refusing to support it. "Pi is not transcendental!" "Wow really, I'd love to see the proof of that!" "You're just sealioning!" I'm not making any claim about which of these two patterns is more common or a bigger problem, but both things totally exist.

xwolfi 6y ago

Yeah but it's very classical. People come in many variations: between the religious autists, the emotional ragers, the ashamed paranoids, the hiding incompetents, the coward wises, the hungry juniors, etc, we've all seen them each time we try a shy challenge of an established practice. Especially in IT where you can survive a little bit longer with absolutely no ability for politeness or compromise. I think the guy got a bit too emotional over that, maybe because he cares too much ? At some point you have to let go: you're not alone, and you don't have enough support ? It's your fault for thinking human relationship are about truth and reality rather than exchanges of favor and networks of influence. Let it go this time, build a support network, come back with the proposal and see who whines the loudest. No point stepping down or leaving in shame.

wott 6y ago

> It sounds like this person got sick of “Sea Lioning” It's more like some other people got sick of that guy coming up with baseless assumptions, and (more importantly) baseless assertions, in order to support his goals; and a few of them don't let that go any more. Because that's a constant pattern for him (he's been Perl's pumpking for several years, and then part of the ruling trio since the change in the governance system caused by the aftermaths of the announcement of his Perl 7 "plan"): he comes up with a change, or a plan like the Perl 7 plan, something that on the surface seems researched and based, and then... he backpedals because he is unable to sustain his claims, or he is proven wrong by people who actually know what they are talking about (with testimonies of recognised people, data, facts forming a consensus), or it becomes clear he didn't study the consequences of his planned changes (again, other people have to put up with the work needed to study that). And sometimes, after a consensus has emerged and he either (seemingly) caved in or played possum (after all, both are more or less fine in a real human interaction, no need to publicly acknowledge every "defeat"), he comes back with the same points which have already been disproven. For example, this time he was arguing with some invisible authority arguments. While real data, real testimony of trustable people is sitting there and say the opposite. Since I follow Perl 5 mailing lists in the recent years, he exhibits that same behavioural pattern. He probably doesn't even do it on purpose, he probably means well, he probably thinks his propositions are well researched and all. But he doesn't learn to do better for the next time. Also, yesterday or 2 days ago, the Steering Committee trio of which he is part decided that for Perl 7, the decision would be to side more with the majority of Perl 5 core developers (that's a manner of saying it which is very abridged, but well...), than with his original plan. So you've got to keep in mind that his burst comes after what he probably felt like a disavowal, and this might be either the real reason, or a fair part of the reasons, rather than this alleged sea-lioning.

lilSebastian 6y ago
Thanks for the accurate and considerate response. Interesting to see the comments from people with no exposure to the people or situation.
- wott 6y ago