3 ms·

> concern trolling or sealioning, of if those are just woke concepts to be disregarded in its entirety. Using terms like "concern trolling" or "sealioning" def

> concern trolling or sealioning, of if those are just woke concepts to be disregarded in its entirety. Using terms like "concern trolling" or "sealioning" definitely marks cultural identity. Considering the term "sealioning": https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet... I recall the original comic was along the lines of a sea lion arguing to the point of following someone into their bedroom. -- I think the idea of taking an argument to places where it's not appropriate is universal. Merriam Webster's definition is much more belligerent: 'something that appears civil, but actually the civility is disingenuous, and they're only arguing to be a jerk to you'. -- I think there's a good reason why e.g. HN guidelines suggest to try and see arguments in a good light.

_cenw 2y ago
Would you consider Jon's behavior in the thread that contributed to him being banned (https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968 https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-represen... - this was not the sole reason) to be "the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable" You don't have to reply with a yes or no. I'm just wondering if you see the traces, and then we can put the difference down to how much benefit of the doubt we each give to potentially bad actors based on how frequently we encounter them.
- rgoulter 2y ago
  It doesn't come across that Jon's comments are "intended to erode the goodwill of the [people] to whom [he is] replying". -- The initial post does come across as raising a genuine concern. (Though I think often the main problem with non-progressives is a lack of articulateness and a lack of legibility). It does come across that commenters are frustrated with Jon in the discussion (in that thread, and from various other threads). > we can put the difference down to how much benefit of the doubt we each give to potentially bad actors based on how frequently we encounter them. There's definitely a part of this frustration where some have been arguing with the same people for months & others haven't seen that. -- But I don't think that's the only thing.

_cenw 2y ago

Would you consider Jon's behavior in the thread that contributed to him being banned (https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968 https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-represen... - this was not the sole reason) to be "the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable" You don't have to reply with a yes or no. I'm just wondering if you see the traces, and then we can put the difference down to how much benefit of the doubt we each give to potentially bad actors based on how frequently we encounter them.

rgoulter 2y ago
It doesn't come across that Jon's comments are "intended to erode the goodwill of the [people] to whom [he is] replying". -- The initial post does come across as raising a genuine concern. (Though I think often the main problem with non-progressives is a lack of articulateness and a lack of legibility). It does come across that commenters are frustrated with Jon in the discussion (in that thread, and from various other threads). > we can put the difference down to how much benefit of the doubt we each give to potentially bad actors based on how frequently we encounter them. There's definitely a part of this frustration where some have been arguing with the same people for months & others haven't seen that. -- But I don't think that's the only thing.