Author Topic: Sealioning  (Read 10595 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2460
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #450 on: October 13, 2018, 09:45:59 AM »
I don't understand this obsession you guys have about getting an exact definition.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7568
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #451 on: October 13, 2018, 11:51:00 AM »
One persons sealion is another persons hero, and much like in the real world of reason logic and intelligence, who is who and what is what depends on your own perception and beliefs about what is happening.
No, in the comic the sealion behaves like an asshole. Even if you don't get the joke, you can acknowledge that following peopel around badgering them is bad behavior.

The definition is not exacting, because that's not quite how human behavior works. It's not a textbook definition, it's a colloquial. Nobody has an exact definition of what "asshole" means, but through use and examples we arrive at a working definition.

No, who is who and what is what is not based on perception and beliefs. That's the opposite of a reasonable, logical, or rational statement. You can reasonably infer from the comic that the sealion has behaved like this before, such that both characters acknowledge it. You can logically deduce that the first panel neither character wants to engage with the sealion because they know the sealion is an asshole. It is not reasonable to use overly polite language to mask bad behavior or to pester people who don't want to interact with you.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Gigabyte

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • If you believe ...
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #452 on: October 13, 2018, 04:49:27 PM »
Nobody has an exact definition of what "asshole" means, but through use and examples we arrive at a working definition.
I know for a fact that some people, including myself, have an exact definition of behaviors that will get you labeled an asshole.  I can't say the same for sealions.
I don't understand some things

Offline Gigabyte

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • If you believe ...
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #453 on: October 13, 2018, 04:53:44 PM »
I just imagined a comic where instead of sealions she lists body parts and says "I don't care much for assholes", which would be a far different comic.  But it would be funny.  Except it wouldn't because nobody would be confused about an asshole showing up, right after you said you can't stand assholes.  And then acting like an asshole.

OK it still might be funny actually.

I don't understand some things

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7568
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #454 on: October 13, 2018, 05:07:25 PM »
Nobody has an exact definition of what "asshole" means, but through use and examples we arrive at a working definition.
I know for a fact that some people, including myself, have an exact definition of behaviors that will get you labeled an asshole.  I can't say the same for sealions.

List the behaviors that fall under being an asshole, exactly and exhaustively, in person and online, without any vaguity.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 13124
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #455 on: October 13, 2018, 05:11:29 PM »
Nobody has an exact definition of what "asshole" means, but through use and examples we arrive at a working definition.
I know for a fact that some people, including myself, have an exact definition of behaviors that will get you labeled an asshole.  I can't say the same for sealions.

List the behaviors that fall under being an asshole, exactly and exhaustively, in person and online, without any vaguity.

That is also universally accepted.

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2460
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #456 on: October 14, 2018, 12:34:39 AM »
Even things that aren't in the especially fuzzy realm of human behavior often turn out to be hard to define exactly.

I asked once before for a definition that captures all and only chairs, and have yet to hear one from any of the people complaining that there's some vagueness in different people's accounts of what sealioning entails.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6533
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #457 on: October 14, 2018, 08:42:32 AM »
I asked once before for a definition that captures all and only chairs

That sounds like a fun game.  My first go: “A piece of furniture designed to seat one person while providing support for the back.”
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6036
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #458 on: October 14, 2018, 10:31:57 AM »


Swing Slide Climb Baby Swing Seat

ETA: I was in a rush and didn't add any context before. Gmalivuk, The Latinist - it does sound like a fun game. Back in the day when I was learning about Platonic ideals I had this kind of argument. Ultimately I concluded that it was a fools errand. In this context I'd it could be an intersting diversion.

/EndDerail
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 01:30:41 PM by brilligtove »
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline heyalison

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #459 on: October 14, 2018, 12:21:11 PM »
I don't understand this obsession you guys have about getting an exact definition.

I'd say it's because there's a conscious and cynical or learned (if unintentional) reaction from some men to push back against any expectation of accountability for their behavior. It's part of a really disheartening branch of skepticism that mostly seems to be about bad faith actors and the aggressive, reactionary politics of privilege-denial. I am glad at least a few men see it and push back at it.

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4741
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #460 on: October 14, 2018, 04:55:55 PM »
If you understand the concepts being promoted, then your repeated misrepresentations of same must be intentional.

What have I misrepresented?

You mean apart from basically everything having to do with sealioning and how we have described it?

Where have I misrepresented anything having to do with 'sealioning'?

I haven't misrepresented anything. All I've done is tally up all the various behaviors that people have attributed to that word, and observed that in aggregate they don't really amount to a consistent whole. 

As far as I can tell there's no consistent behavior pattern that can be described as 'sealioning.' All the definitions have varied widely depending on who's giving them.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2018, 10:16:38 AM by John Albert »

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4741
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #461 on: October 14, 2018, 05:15:45 PM »
So let's look at these links. You say "another poster has said it's about harassment and bullying." What Arthwollipot is actually doing is saying that sealioning is a type of harassment and a form of bullying.

Art said 'online harassment and bullying,' which are behaviors otherwise known as cyberstalking.

The reason I brought it up is because you yourself had just denied that 'sealioning' had anything to do with cyberstalking.

         
No one has said it's about excessive politeness or cyberstalking

OK this is also not true. Several people have said it involves politeness. Even one of the cited articles describes it thus "In this, the perpetrator endlessly nitpicks and relentlessly pursues the topic, but oh so very politely..."

Another poster has said it's about harassment and bullying, and that it entails following people around to multiple threads and platforms.

The fact that other posters have definitions that contradict yours is evidence of my claim that the definition is nebulous.


Squares are rectangles but rectangles aren't all sqaures, and boh are quadrilaterals, sets and subsets. Does this sound familiar?

Yeah, but triangles are neither rectangles nor squares, are they? That's because at least two of their attributes are contradictory.   

The problem with your set theory argument is that some of these definitions that people are giving for 'sealioning' are directly contradictory to the definitions being given by others. Hence, they cannot reasonably be assigned to the same set. 

It's redolent of your earlier argument that "false politeness" is a subcategory of "politeness." That argument makes no sense either.

It's probably not a good idea to invoke set theory as the basis of your argument, when you don't really understand how it works.


Your second link goes to Arthwollipot again describing a type of harassment that would fall under sealioning. Once again, it's still got the bad faith elements, and in fact he's replying to you saying "[following people on the street] is depicted in the comic, and that allegation also been made earlier in this thread. At any rate, following somebody around in their daily activities doesn't really have any appropriate analog on the Internet.

Yes, following somebody around in their daily activities most certainly does have an analog on the Internet.

We've already discussed this. Arthwollipot likened 'sealioning' to the kind of cyberstalking and cyberbullying experienced by many women on the Internet. That kind of activity includes online harassment, doxxing, mobbing, account hacking, and threats of violence, which do bear a certain resemblance to following somebody around and harassing them in their daily activities.


Arth is responding specifically to a claim you made (which you would later claim never to have made, btw) but notably is not claiming to give a complete definition of what sealioning is. Once again, nothing about the linked post is incongruous with other definitions of sealioning unless you assume that each time someone responds to you they're also giving a an exhaustive definition of the concept.

The problem is not that I'm expecting an exhaustive definition of 'sealioning.' The problem is that all the definitions have differed to the point of incongruity, and some are even directly contradictory. Hence, there seem to be no practical boundaries and that renders the word practically useless for describing any distinguishable behavior.

Judging by the discussion in this thread, it appears that the word can mean whatever kind of behavior that an accuser wants it to mean.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 08:18:55 PM by John Albert »

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4741
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #462 on: October 14, 2018, 05:36:31 PM »
Nobody has an exact definition of what "asshole" means, but through use and examples we arrive at a working definition.

The definition of "asshole" basically just means an annoying or despicable person. It's a very personal kind of insult or slur.

Unlike 'sealioning,' it's not purported to convey any specific kind of behavior.


I don't understand this obsession you guys have about getting an exact definition.

I'd say it's because there's a conscious and cynical or learned (if unintentional) reaction from some men to push back against any expectation of accountability for their behavior. It's part of a really disheartening branch of skepticism that mostly seems to be about bad faith actors and the aggressive, reactionary politics of privilege-denial. I am glad at least a few men see it and push back at it.

It's because words have definitions for a reason, so that we can all understand each other.

What does any of this have to do with anyone pushing back against accountability for their behavior?

When a slang term is coined as a dogwhistle or inside joke to disparage others, I believe that discussing its origins and popular usages is a worthwhile activity.

'Sealioning' is an ill-defined word that derives from a vague, ill-conceived webcomic that many people find confusing. That being the case, even the people who feel the word descriptive of some kind of behavior cannot agree on exactly what that behavior entails.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2018, 05:58:39 PM by John Albert »

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7568
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #463 on: October 14, 2018, 06:40:20 PM »
So let's look at these links. You say "another poster has said it's about harassment and bullying." What Arthwollipot is actually doing is saying that sealioning is a type of harassment and a form of bullying.

Art said 'online harassment and bullying,' which are behaviors otherwise known as cyberstalking.

The reason I brought it up is because you yourself had just denied that 'sealioning' had anything to do with cyberstalking.

         
No one has said it's about excessive politeness or cyberstalking

OK this is also not true. Several people have said it involves politeness. Even one of the cited articles describes it thus "In this, the perpetrator endlessly nitpicks and relentlessly pursues the topic, but oh so very politely..."

Another poster has said it's about harassment and bullying, and that it entails following people around to multiple threads and platforms.

The fact that other posters have definitions that contradict yours is evidence of my claim that the definition is nebulous.


Squares are rectangles but rectangles aren't all sqaures, and boh are quadrilaterals, sets and subsets. Does this sound familiar?

Yeah, but triangles are neither rectangles nor squares, are they? The reason they don't fit into the category of 'rectangles' is because at least two of their attributes are contradictory.   

The problem with your set theory argument is that some of these definitions that people are giving for 'sealioning' are directly contradictory to the definitions being given by others. Hence, they cannot reasonably be assigned to the same set. 

It's redolent of your earlier argument that "false politeness" is a subcategory of "politeness." That argument makes no sense.

It's probably not a good idea to invoke set theory as the basis of your argument, when you don't really understand how it works.


Your second link goes to Arthwollipot again describing a type of harassment that would fall under sealioning. Once again, it's still got the bad faith elements, and in fact he's replying to you saying "[following people on the street] is depicted in the comic, and that allegation also been made earlier in this thread. At any rate, following somebody around in their daily activities doesn't really have any appropriate analog on the Internet.

Yes, following somebody around in their daily activities most certainly does have an analog on the Internet.

We've already discussed this. Arthwollipot likened 'sealioning' to the kind of cyberstalking and cyberbullying experienced by many women on the Internet. That kind of activity includes online harassment, doxxing, mobbing, account hacking, and threats, and it bears a certain resemblance to following somebody around in their daily activities.


Arth is responding specifically to a claim you made (which you would later claim never to have made, btw) but notably is not claiming to give a complete definition of what sealioning is. Once again, nothing about the linked post is incongruous with other definitions of sealioning unless you assume that each time someone responds to you they're also giving a an exhaustive definition of the concept.

The problem is not that everybody gives an exhaustive definition of 'sealioning.' The problem is that so many of the definitions given have been so totally different, often incongruous, and sometimes contradictory. The definition has no practical boundaries, which renders it practically useless for describing any distinguishable behavior.

Judging by the discussion in this thread, it appears that the word can mean whatever kind of behavior that an accuser wants it to mean.

Online harassment and bullying can be part of cyberstalking, but they are not the entire definition of cyberstalking, nor would all online harassment/bullying be considered cyberstalking. That is congruent with me saying "Nobody said it's about excessive poleitness or cyberstalking" in reply to you claiming that other posters said it was about cyberstalking and (separately) about cyberstalking, and that those two claims were both contradictory and exclusionary. That's why it's obnoxious to split out single sentences, because now it's 4 days later and you're trying to respond to a clipped fragment of a sentence and you clearly can't remmeber the context that you clipped out or what it responded to.

You have not yet demonstrated that any given definitions have been contradictory. You may want to try giving evidence for your repeated claim. I don't think it will work since you're still stomping your metaphorical foot and declaring that false politeness isn't real.

Thirdly, make up your mind. In the quote below, you claim  following someone around doesn't have an online analog. In your reply above you say it does in response to me quoting what you said to explain what Arth was saying.

That's what is depicted in the comic, and that allegation also been made earlier in this thread. At any rate, following somebody around in their daily activities doesn't really have any appropriate analog on the Internet. Most forums and social media have explicit rules against harassment, and mechanisms to block and ban offenders.

So if you've changed you mind, that's all well and good. I don't think you did though, it looks more like because of your habit of editing other people's posts to reply selectively you didn't really read and missed the quotes. It looks like you're not really reading for content, just looking for things to reply to, and contradicted yourself smugly thinking you'd found a flaw in my post.

So now I guess we'll wait again to see if you're actually going to provide evidence that the given definitions are contradictory or not.
HIISSSSSSSS

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4741
Re: Sealioning
« Reply #464 on: October 14, 2018, 06:56:44 PM »
Online harassment and bullying can be part of cyberstalking, but they are not the entire definition of cyberstalking, nor would all online harassment/bullying be considered cyberstalking.

Bullshit.

         
Quote
cy·ber·stalk·ing
ˈsībərˌstôkiNG
noun
the repeated use of electronic communications to harass or frighten someone, for example by sending threatening emails.

Art said that 'sealioning' is about cyberstalking, and you denied it was about cyberstalking. Likewise, numerous people have said that 'sealioning' is about excessive politeness, and you denied it was about excessive politeness.

Those are contradictions between what you said 'sealioning' means, and what others have said it means. Besides those contradictions, there have been several others. Such as when one of Art's linked sources claimed it was about being "oh so very polite" while another characterized its tone as "combative."


That's why it's obnoxious to split out single sentences, because now it's 4 days later and you're trying to respond to a clipped fragment of a sentence and you clearly can't remmeber the context that you clipped out or what it responded to.

The context is in reference to the same circular argument you've been repeating over and over again for the last few pages: you deny that any contradiction or incoherence exists, because you say the definition of 'sealioning' is a superset of all the aforementioned behaviors regardless of any contradiction or incoherence.

I'm saying that doesn't make any sense because excessive vagueness and contradictions defeat the meaning of the term.

I included my earlier reply when I quoted your sentence , because you have a bad habit of selectively ignoring the things people say and just re-repeating the same arguments over and over again.

 
You have not yet demonstrated that any given definitions have been contradictory.

Yeah, pretty sure I just did. That makes twice now. You ignoring it doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Thirdly, make up your mind. In the quote below, you claim  following someone around doesn't have an online analog. In your reply above you say it does in response to me quoting what you said to explain what Arth was saying.

That's what is depicted in the comic, and that allegation also been made earlier in this thread. At any rate, following somebody around in their daily activities doesn't really have any appropriate analog on the Internet. Most forums and social media have explicit rules against harassment, and mechanisms to block and ban offenders.


So if you've changed you mind, that's all well and good.

I seem to recall my earlier statement (about "following somebody around" not having an appropriate analog on the Internet) having been made prior to Art mentioning cyberbullying. When he likened it to the kind of harassment that some women receive online, then I certainly agree that behavior could be construed as "following somebody around in their daily activities."

But others, such as yourself, have since denied that's what 'sealioning' means.

So who knows? It's an ill-defined word.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2018, 05:02:15 PM by John Albert »