Bad Faith and Sealioning

[Snarf Zagyg]

I still have trouble understanding the concept, then (that was what the comic posted earlier led me to think). But I am glad that it isn't.

Sealioning is just a specific example of what we see more generally...

A person who isn't interested in actually engaging in a good-faith conversation, or the merits of an issue, but is interested in turning the conversation into an argument about, well, arguments.

That way, instead of having to engage in a discussion about merits, it just goes "meta," and becomes an argument about arguing. Which can be incredibly frustrating to other people ... which is the point.

It's the internet equivalent of a sibling who just keeps calmly annoying you until you explode, and then tells your parents that you're acting all angry.

 

[MGibster]

...I'm just curious if you have any evidence to back up your accusation?

I've been accused of sea lioning before. Not here, on another site, and at the time I didn't know what it was. When I learned what it was, I certainly took it as an accusation I was participating in the discussion in bad faith. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where someone was called out for sea lioning that wasn't an accusation of bad faith.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've been accused of sea lioning before. Not here, on another site, and at the time I didn't know what it was. When I learned what it was, I certainly took it as an accusation I was participating in the discussion in bad faith. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where someone was called out for sea lioning that wasn't an accusation of bad faith.

Honestly, the trouble is that from the perspective of another person, it can be really hard to tell if the person on the other end is sealioning or engaging in good faith.

I mean ... I'm not going to name names, but there are a few posters here that I've come to realize are not arguing in bad faith, they are just really bad with social cues, and really insistent on certain things. It happens.

As I wrote before, it's best to disengage long before it even becomes an issue. Nothing is that important here. I mean, except for my cause to get rid of bards. That is something I will pursue to the heat death of the universe, or the end of the bards- whichever comes first.

 

[Morrus]

I've been accused of sea lioning before. Not here, on another site, and at the time I didn't know what it was. When I learned what it was, I certainly took it as an accusation I was participating in the discussion in bad faith. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where someone was called out for sea lioning that wasn't an accusation of bad faith.

It is an accusation of bad faith. You can’t innocently sealion. If you don’t have bad faith, you aren’t sealioning.

 

[Lanefan]

Nothing is that important here. I mean, except for my cause to get rid of bards. That is something I will pursue to the heat death of the universe, or the end of the bards- whichever comes first.

And sea-lion Bards are, I assume, right out?

 

[MGibster]

Honestly, the trouble is that from the perspective of another person, it can be really hard to tell if the person on the other end is sealioning or engaging in good faith.

It can be. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But like Kenny Rogers said, you got to know when to walk away.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It can be. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But like Kenny Rogers said, you got to know when to walk away.

Well, I follow his advice fully.

I run!

And enjoy some nice rotisserie chicken.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the idea that sea-lioning is always bad faith isnt necessarily the case. I think some folks may have good intentions, just a lack of self-awareness that they are, in fact, sea-lioning. Generally speaking here, not aimed at you.

This is an interesting take. So your take is one should read an accusation of sealioning more as a statement that someone finds your questioning behavior personally irritating and not implicitly bad faith?

That’s not how I’ve ever taken the accusations, but maybe some people are using the term that way?

 

[payn]

This is an interesting take. So your take is one should read an accusation of sealioning more as a statement that someone finds your questioning behavior personally irritating and not implicitly bad faith?

That’s not how I’ve ever taken the accusations, but maybe some people are using the term that way?

I've seen what is obvious behavior indicating sea-lioning before, and i've seen some topic fixated folks accused of doing it in a shoot from hip fashion. In either event, I think its best to just disengage as opposed to escalate.

 

[Staffan]

So, in the hypothetical scenario :

Poster A: <develop stupid arguments (possibly about sealion, or saying that water boils at 43°C)>
Poster B: Why are you saying this?
Poster A: <ignoring poster A> <continues to develop nonsensical argument about water's boiling point>
Poster B: but why? Can you back it up with fact, statistics or so on? <demonstrates that water boils at 100°C>
Poster A: *report poster B"
Poster B is banned for sealioning.

Is this how it work? Why isn't the onus on A to block poster B instead if they want to keep reiterating offensive arguments but not back them up?

The thing is that in this example, person A is saying something that is clearly contrafactual. Sea-lioning usually involves things that require a modicum of judgement, which makes it something that can be questioned. In addition, it is all too often a group activity, either as part of coordinated harassment or because people can't be hedgehogged to read a whole thread before replying. So what you get is something like this:

A: X said a bad thing.
B: What do you mean X said a bad thing?
A: X said Y, which is bad because of these reasons.
B: Where is your proof that X said Y?
A: Right here.
B: I don't know if I can trust that source.
A: Well, there's also this and that source where X says something close to Y, only using different phrasing.
B: I don't think Y is as bad as you say it is. And doesn't X have freedom of speech?
A: X certainly has freedom of speech, just as I have the freedom to say that saying Y is bad and that people who say Y should be shamed for it.

That bit is exhausting enough, but then we add:
C: What do you mean X said a bad thing?
... with C, D, E, and F all repeating the stuff B said.