Yeah I’m kind of mixed on this concept, because there is nothing wrong with asking for a source and/or asking someone to explain their position. And it seems like a really bad idea to discourage people from asking questions like that.
I understand where you’re coming from, but it’ll be easy to tell. Someone who’s sealioning will skip or “forget” points you’ve already made when they’re making their counter arguments. The conversation will be irritating and demanding.
Someone who genuinely wants to discuss and learn won’t wear on you that way. Their replies won’t have that “I outsmarted you and you’re an idiot” kind of feel. It’s hard to explain, but people can recognize the difference. I don’t think there’s a threat to honest debate here.
Yes, it’s possible to confuse sealions with people who are simply rude and obnoxious, but since I don’t like talking to either one, I don’t much care.
The problem is not that it’s hard to to tell who is or is not sealioning. The problem is people using “sealioning” to go on the offensive against those who ask them to provide evidence or citations for their statements.
Fortunately, common sense usually works there, too. If person A makes highly specific or unusual statement, person B reasonably asks for a source, and person A angrily responds with defensiveness and accusations, then it’s pretty clear that person A was talking out of their ass.
Forgetting points that were already made is something that I commonly encounter, but I just attribute that to people being generally forgetful. I don’t have any expectation of other people putting in much effort in rereading the whole thread before each response; so if someone forgets what was previously discussed, I’ll just respond with a summary and continue from there.
I think the key part is whether it’s being done in good faith or bad faith. Sometimes I ask a stupid question on Lemmy, but because I am honestly curious and not trying to get into a fight, and I usually accept the reply to me and don’t take it as an invite to get into a debate, I think people can tell I’m not sealioning.
If I replied “source?” for your comment right now, I’d be trolling. I almost certainly know that it is a bad idea to discourage sourcing information, and that should not be something I need a cited source for. That would probably be sealioning. Someone asking for a source on a meme I posted is probably genuinely curious and not sealioning.
And as per usual, judging intent can be difficult, especially when people (including me) come into a forum with my own sets of biases, pieces of knowledge I have that I incorrectly assume that everyone else knows, and absence of knowledge that others incorrectly assume everyone else knows. So people who are not sealioning might get mistaken for it just because they want a source on something they do not know that most people do. I see where you are coming from.
And that’s exactly the ambiguity I was trying to get at with my last paragraph.
I’m kind of surprised I got downvoted while contrarian “source?” comments got lots of upvotes. In all honesty, it feels bad. I am not sure how I said anything anywhere near offensive that deserves disapproval, but being contrarian seems a lot more purposely meant to piss off and still meets lots of peoples’ approval.
But even still, I have gone and assumed bad faith or at best, an attempt to be funny and make people laugh through what is still in the end just contrarianism. I do not think it is possible they are genuinely asking for a source because I think we’re making claims based on general observation of the world, things that do not need to be cited, like “the sky is blue” or “things fall when you drop them”. Just look up and see (or trust the wealth of statements talking about the sky’s blueness if you are (color)blind). Perhaps I’m incorrectly assuming bad faith here based off of a trend of seeing contrarianism, and I’m incorrectly extrapolating that trend here. It is very ambiguous. I really do not think I am wrong, but given that we’re literally talking about the difficulty of determining good vs. bad faith engagement it feels a little arrogant to not acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.
That’s one of the issues, isn’t it? I recently found someone who only responded to comments about Margaret Thatcher, challenging negative comments about her. This person’s history went back years and ALL of the comments (thousands!) only challenged negative ones about her. It could have been a bot, of course, but if real, it was a pretty weird way of engaging online. That goes beyond contrarianism, it’s some sort of “distributed sealioning” maybe?
You usually only find out after repeatedly explaining, yet the interlocutor remaining unconvinced to a point where someone with good faith would’ve had enough information to work with.
That’s the thing, it takes time and Gish gallops you into proving ever more reduced assertions.
It’s very childish in nature, yet devis as it takes on the guide of scientific rational discourse.
It’s a hard one, though. I’ve found myself challenging someone who then avoids answering and making other similarly unsupported points… eventually you learn that it’s a waste of time. Equally, you don’t want to leave their comments out there unchallenged.
Yeah I’m kind of mixed on this concept, because there is nothing wrong with asking for a source and/or asking someone to explain their position. And it seems like a really bad idea to discourage people from asking questions like that.
Seems to me that’s the point of it: to stop people asking questions in good faith and then persisting on challenging lies and disinformation.
I understand where you’re coming from, but it’ll be easy to tell. Someone who’s sealioning will skip or “forget” points you’ve already made when they’re making their counter arguments. The conversation will be irritating and demanding.
Someone who genuinely wants to discuss and learn won’t wear on you that way. Their replies won’t have that “I outsmarted you and you’re an idiot” kind of feel. It’s hard to explain, but people can recognize the difference. I don’t think there’s a threat to honest debate here.
Yes, it’s possible to confuse sealions with people who are simply rude and obnoxious, but since I don’t like talking to either one, I don’t much care.
The problem is not that it’s hard to to tell who is or is not sealioning. The problem is people using “sealioning” to go on the offensive against those who ask them to provide evidence or citations for their statements.
Fortunately, common sense usually works there, too. If person A makes highly specific or unusual statement, person B reasonably asks for a source, and person A angrily responds with defensiveness and accusations, then it’s pretty clear that person A was talking out of their ass.
Forgetting points that were already made is something that I commonly encounter, but I just attribute that to people being generally forgetful. I don’t have any expectation of other people putting in much effort in rereading the whole thread before each response; so if someone forgets what was previously discussed, I’ll just respond with a summary and continue from there.
I think the key part is whether it’s being done in good faith or bad faith. Sometimes I ask a stupid question on Lemmy, but because I am honestly curious and not trying to get into a fight, and I usually accept the reply to me and don’t take it as an invite to get into a debate, I think people can tell I’m not sealioning.
If I replied “source?” for your comment right now, I’d be trolling. I almost certainly know that it is a bad idea to discourage sourcing information, and that should not be something I need a cited source for. That would probably be sealioning. Someone asking for a source on a meme I posted is probably genuinely curious and not sealioning.
And as per usual, judging intent can be difficult, especially when people (including me) come into a forum with my own sets of biases, pieces of knowledge I have that I incorrectly assume that everyone else knows, and absence of knowledge that others incorrectly assume everyone else knows. So people who are not sealioning might get mistaken for it just because they want a source on something they do not know that most people do. I see where you are coming from.
How can you tell good faith from bad faith?
For instance, can you tell if this question is asked in good faith or not? These things seem very hard know.
It’s tricky. Often, you can only go by tone and context. Experience helps a lot. Even still, I’ll get it wrong sometimes.
That’s probably the best way of dealing with it.
And that’s exactly the ambiguity I was trying to get at with my last paragraph.
I’m kind of surprised I got downvoted while contrarian “source?” comments got lots of upvotes. In all honesty, it feels bad. I am not sure how I said anything anywhere near offensive that deserves disapproval, but being contrarian seems a lot more purposely meant to piss off and still meets lots of peoples’ approval.
But even still, I have gone and assumed bad faith or at best, an attempt to be funny and make people laugh through what is still in the end just contrarianism. I do not think it is possible they are genuinely asking for a source because I think we’re making claims based on general observation of the world, things that do not need to be cited, like “the sky is blue” or “things fall when you drop them”. Just look up and see (or trust the wealth of statements talking about the sky’s blueness if you are (color)blind). Perhaps I’m incorrectly assuming bad faith here based off of a trend of seeing contrarianism, and I’m incorrectly extrapolating that trend here. It is very ambiguous. I really do not think I am wrong, but given that we’re literally talking about the difficulty of determining good vs. bad faith engagement it feels a little arrogant to not acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.
That’s one of the issues, isn’t it? I recently found someone who only responded to comments about Margaret Thatcher, challenging negative comments about her. This person’s history went back years and ALL of the comments (thousands!) only challenged negative ones about her. It could have been a bot, of course, but if real, it was a pretty weird way of engaging online. That goes beyond contrarianism, it’s some sort of “distributed sealioning” maybe?
You usually only find out after repeatedly explaining, yet the interlocutor remaining unconvinced to a point where someone with good faith would’ve had enough information to work with.
That’s the thing, it takes time and Gish gallops you into proving ever more reduced assertions.
It’s very childish in nature, yet devis as it takes on the guide of scientific rational discourse.
It’s a hard one, though. I’ve found myself challenging someone who then avoids answering and making other similarly unsupported points… eventually you learn that it’s a waste of time. Equally, you don’t want to leave their comments out there unchallenged.
Yeah context is definitely important
Source?