This has always been my gripe with internet buzzwords and phrases. A lot of the time they’re invented for a legitimate thing but once it’s out there you can’t control it and people will misuse and misinterpret it (often for their own clout), and then the use in the original context becomes discredited.
I think if you read the Sealion comic as specifically a parody about the alt-right, it’s alright, but the moment you start talking about “sealioning” as if it’s a generalizable logical fallacy or something it completely falls apart (I doubt it was ever intended to be read that way either). It’s about as serious of a criticism as putting the other side’s position next to a crying wojak.
I think I figured out the main problem with sealioning specifically. Usually the person represented by the Victorian humans in that comic simply state their position, and then an argument of some type ensues- it’s rare that something correct is also too abstract to explain, especially when you have time to type it out on the internet.
It’s also generally used in contexts where both parties are choosing to engage. That’s like, the main bad thing the sea lion does in the comic, and it’s like, if you can’t eat breakfast because people are trying to debate you on the internet, maybe try putting the phone down.
Most of the time I’ve seen it used is when someone is doing something to vent, like posting “ugh men”, and then someone comes in trying to start an argument with the actually not all men schtick. And if you refuse to engage they’ll reply to entirely unrelated stuff trying to argue the same thing (which is what is implied by the breakfast scene).
Specifically used in the same way that most people on here dunk on reddit debatebros.
That’s the “legitimate use” I mentioned, but I don’t know I have ever actually seen it used that way in practice. It’s so easy for debatebros to misuse it to win an argument and that useage has far eclipsed the meaning you mentioned. I’m used to dismissing any and all claims of “sealioning” so saying something like “they’re refusing to disengage,” or, “they’re following me around the site” are much better because they’re not wrapped up in an ambiguous and frequently misused term. At this point, I think the “legitimate use” meaning basically only exists to justify the term.
Search “sealioning” on Hexbear and you can find plenty of accusations towards people who are not engaging in what you described. The problem is that the sea lion does multiple things in the comic, calling out an insult (good), asking for evidence (fine), and following them around (bad), and so if the only actually bad thing is following them around, then just say that instead of the more ambiguous term - the only reason to use the more ambiguous term is to characterize someone doing the first two as doing the third, even if they’re not.
I’ll also point out that I was given a definition previously in this thread that made zero mention of following people around.
This has always been my gripe with internet buzzwords and phrases. A lot of the time they’re invented for a legitimate thing but once it’s out there you can’t control it and people will misuse and misinterpret it (often for their own clout), and then the use in the original context becomes discredited.
I think if you read the Sealion comic as specifically a parody about the alt-right, it’s alright, but the moment you start talking about “sealioning” as if it’s a generalizable logical fallacy or something it completely falls apart (I doubt it was ever intended to be read that way either). It’s about as serious of a criticism as putting the other side’s position next to a crying wojak.
I think I figured out the main problem with sealioning specifically. Usually the person represented by the Victorian humans in that comic simply state their position, and then an argument of some type ensues- it’s rare that something correct is also too abstract to explain, especially when you have time to type it out on the internet.
It’s also generally used in contexts where both parties are choosing to engage. That’s like, the main bad thing the sea lion does in the comic, and it’s like, if you can’t eat breakfast because people are trying to debate you on the internet, maybe try putting the phone down.
Most of the time I’ve seen it used is when someone is doing something to vent, like posting “ugh men”, and then someone comes in trying to start an argument with the actually not all men schtick. And if you refuse to engage they’ll reply to entirely unrelated stuff trying to argue the same thing (which is what is implied by the breakfast scene).
Specifically used in the same way that most people on here dunk on reddit debatebros.
That’s the “legitimate use” I mentioned, but I don’t know I have ever actually seen it used that way in practice. It’s so easy for debatebros to misuse it to win an argument and that useage has far eclipsed the meaning you mentioned. I’m used to dismissing any and all claims of “sealioning” so saying something like “they’re refusing to disengage,” or, “they’re following me around the site” are much better because they’re not wrapped up in an ambiguous and frequently misused term. At this point, I think the “legitimate use” meaning basically only exists to justify the term.
Search “sealioning” on Hexbear and you can find plenty of accusations towards people who are not engaging in what you described. The problem is that the sea lion does multiple things in the comic, calling out an insult (good), asking for evidence (fine), and following them around (bad), and so if the only actually bad thing is following them around, then just say that instead of the more ambiguous term - the only reason to use the more ambiguous term is to characterize someone doing the first two as doing the third, even if they’re not.
I’ll also point out that I was given a definition previously in this thread that made zero mention of following people around.