3 ms·

That’s not what sealioning is at all. The rest of your generational rant is whatever it is, but sealioning is pretty well defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

That’s not what sealioning is at all. The rest of your generational rant is whatever it is, but sealioning is pretty well defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning If I repeated asked you for data to support your generalizations (“which younger people? Do you have an example? Why 2005 and not 2010?”) without admitting outright that I disagreed with you, that would be sealioning. If you are being accused of sealioning, and you have 1) stated your opinion and 2) are asking good-faith questions in an effort to actually understand, then you’re probably not doing it. OTOH if that happens a lot, you might be the problem without realizing it.

PaulDavisThe1st 9mo ago
I know both the cartoon and the wikipage. My interpretation of what is in the cartoon and on that page differs from yours a little. The critical part of sealioning from my perspective is not "repeatedly asking for data to support the position, without outright admitting disagreement", because that is common in other contexts where it is applauded. This is how debates at scientific conferences (or in other contexts) happen, much of the time. It's how debate and discussion happen online sometimes, and is frequently seen as appropriate and even welcome. The specific thing that the cartoon gets at is that the questioner was not invited into the conversation (c.f. the "You're in my house") frame. They take a position that they have a right to ask questions, when the other person/people involved did not invite them to be participants in the exchange at all. The people in the house do not consider their conversation about sealions to be public; the sealion does, and responds.
- shermantanktop 9mo ago
  Out here in the wide seas of the internet, I’m not sure what the equivalent of those house walls are. They presumably demarcate an expectation of either privacy or a clear division between participants and observers. I think those are just private chats.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    If it was truly a private chat, there is no sealion. That's why my perspective on this is that it is precisely about the expectation of privacy (even when in a factually non-private context), or as you note a clear division between participants and observers. And that's why I think there's a cohort/age-based aspect to this: early users of the internet never had any concept of privacy in general, other than for email.

PaulDavisThe1st 9mo ago

I know both the cartoon and the wikipage. My interpretation of what is in the cartoon and on that page differs from yours a little. The critical part of sealioning from my perspective is not "repeatedly asking for data to support the position, without outright admitting disagreement", because that is common in other contexts where it is applauded. This is how debates at scientific conferences (or in other contexts) happen, much of the time. It's how debate and discussion happen online sometimes, and is frequently seen as appropriate and even welcome. The specific thing that the cartoon gets at is that the questioner was not invited into the conversation (c.f. the "You're in my house") frame. They take a position that they have a right to ask questions, when the other person/people involved did not invite them to be participants in the exchange at all. The people in the house do not consider their conversation about sealions to be public; the sealion does, and responds.

shermantanktop 9mo ago
Out here in the wide seas of the internet, I’m not sure what the equivalent of those house walls are. They presumably demarcate an expectation of either privacy or a clear division between participants and observers. I think those are just private chats.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  If it was truly a private chat, there is no sealion. That's why my perspective on this is that it is precisely about the expectation of privacy (even when in a factually non-private context), or as you note a clear division between participants and observers. And that's why I think there's a cohort/age-based aspect to this: early users of the internet never had any concept of privacy in general, other than for email.