REEEEE SEALIONING!!!

>REEEEE SEALIONING!!!
So was Socrates sealioning by asking questions until people contradicted themselves?

Attached: sealioningheader.png (697x468, 239.38K)

>Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable. Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims. The term comes from a web comic depicting a sea lion engaging in such behavior.

Attached: sealion.png (720x563, 178.45K)

>otherwise companies would just hire minorities so they could pay less.
they do. it's a problem, and everyone knows this to the point it's entered pop-culture.

Gaslight sealion toxic bixnood incel

That sea lion raises a good point though. It’s almost as if the maker of this comic didn’t have an answer so simply presented the questioner as a nuisance in order to avoid it.

Gamergate

I guess what I'm trying to figure out, and why I'm coming to Yea Forums, is if this newly labelled "sealioning" is not a valid tactic. Is it a reasonable behavior that has newly been labelled as something negative? From all the Plato dialogs I've read, it seems like Socrates was doing exactly this.

>is if this newly labelled "sealioning" is not a valid tactic.
it's not. it's obnoxious and it's followed up with the person doing it gasping and clutching at pearls when the other person inevitable snaps and tells them to fuck off.

Seems like something only blacks and trannies would find objectionable.

they do. why do you think all the worst/hardlabor/menial jobs are mostly jobs done by immigrants?

Sealioning is a recent development that is legit just "asking questions until the person fails to explain themselves" The first reply's image shows this. The woman makes a statement and flat out refuses to explain it. If you make a statement publicaly and refuse to back it up that's on you. It's like saying defending your thesis is you being the victim of sealioning

i like the implication here that racists shouldn't be held accountable for their racist views and that if you're racist in public, if someone of that race gets offended then they're a tiresome bore.

And the woman acts like she's put upon and long suffering. A common false high ground to take when you've lost an argument.

>hoping to erode the patience or goodwill
This is ridiculous. This presumes to know the intention of the person asking questions.

>Sealioning is the excuse dishonest midwits use when faced with a question they can't answer. "Whoah, stop sealioning me! You can't ask me to justify the contradictions of my thesis!"

The absurd thing is that the sea lion in that comic IS FUCKING RIGHT. The bitch just insulted his entire species, and then refused to explain why that insult was warranted.

I guess she doesn't like sea lions because they actually hold her accountable for the shit she says?

Attached: 1518674044821(1).jpg (396x385, 46.17K)

>dishonest midwits
taxonomy and semantics is the only thing they have. if they can identify and name something they don't like (i.e. sealioning), they feel like they've won the conversation. also, they LOVE to think they've coined a new term/phrase.

>Insults species
>Refuses to elaborate

I'm thinking based.

>also, they LOVE to think they've coined a new term/phrase
I see this so commonly that I've coined a neologism for it: alchemical linguistics.

>insulting socrates

WHAT DID YOU DO WITH ATLANTIS, BRITISH ROBBER

Attached: 1649025668901.png (624x434, 102.51K)

Yeah, when you have no valid arguments, playing with words and attaching labels to your interlocutor are the only viable strategies. Call him a nazi, and he's lost not only this discussion but all future ones, regardless of his evidence. Call a legitimate question "sea lioning", and you don't have to answer it. Call mentally ill men who mutilate themselves and drug themselves full of oestrogens "transWOMEN", and you've won that particular discussion before it even begins. "But of course transwomen are women: it's in their very name, dummy."

I loathe these retarded, dishonest cunts with every vibrating atom of my being.

Attached: 185-1857296_mad-pepe-png-angry-pepe-transparent.png (439x368, 30.08K)

Can I go to a place where black people can hear me and say in public "I DON'T MIND MOST MINORITIES, BUT BLACKS? I COULD DO WITHOUT BLACKS." And then, when a black guy hears me and politely asks me to explain what I mean, act as if I'm the victim and he's the asshole?

Can I do that? Asking for a friend.

Attached: 1651080665391.jpg (1007x1024, 65.31K)

Attached: SealioningEdit.png (720x563, 481.42K)

see

i see what u did there

Attached: smug pac man.png (600x600, 41.17K)

>But they're called Black Lives Matter.
>Do you think black lives don't matter?
>But they're called Anti-Fascist
>Are you a fasicst?
>But they're called Don't Rape and Murder Puppies and Kittens.
>Do you think puppies and kittens should be raped and murdered?

It’s more like, random things you overhear strangers say aren’t an invitation to a public debate. Most people aren’t interested in an antagonistic conversation with a stranger.

It's a strawman. This sort of thing rarely happens in public. The comic is made in response (ostensibly) to things like Reddit/Twitter threads or forums. Where two people are having a conversation and another person shows up. It's a forum for public discussion. If you didn't want someone to show up then you should have held it in private.

the final redpill, if you're in a position where someone is throwing those terms at you you've already lost

the sea lion was in the right and was very polite and respectful, she owes him an apology

>niggering

>it's not
It's entirely valid to claim X and refuse to elaborate. And it's just as valid for someone else to call you out on it and label you a fuckhead for it - and he'll have better grounding on it.

I think this particular reaction is the outcome of the contradiction within those who use the term "sealioning" between their self-identification as rationalists and their (entirely human and understandable) propensity to still hold and express opinions that are not really well-founded, but rather regarded as self-evident, intuitive or personal. They can't admit that "it's just, like, my opinion man, seems right to me, I dunno" - because having an opinion that can't be proven with FACTS and LOGIC is something that bigots do, and being a bigot is the worst thing there is. EVERYTHING they say and believe has to always be 100% well-reasoned and entirely rational, so they get angry when someone pokes at them eventually being irrational.

>It’s more like, random things you overhear strangers say aren’t an invitation to a public debate. Most people aren’t interested in an antagonistic conversation with a stranger.
So just like,
>"I can't really prove it, but I still think that way and you won't change my opinion".
Oh, wait. That would make you sound like a NOT ENTIRELY REASONABLE PERSON, and you can't have that when you base your entire personality around being absolutely reasonable about everything.

I think that (not to sound like a boomer) but online "safe spaces" and "hugboxes" like Twitter and Reddit where contradictory ideas are outlawed have made them weak. When you're used to dismissing an opposing idea as bigotry, or siccing moderation on them, then your muscles of argumentation are weak.

I don't know what the future really holds for social media, but if Twitter really does become a neutral space then this will also benefit people on the left. They will learn to stand for what they believe instead of passively believing it. And I think that's a good thing. Their ideas will become strong and polished, like stones in a riverbed.

>I don't know what the future really holds for social media, but if Twitter really does become a neutral space then this will also benefit people on the left.
Lots of people on the left are not living in huboxes. They post here, for example.

Indeed. These slimy pieces of shit love to play with words.

True. I cannot be contained by any hug box. They're all too cramped.

Attached: 1641413119357.jpg (680x680, 41.46K)

Why do you think that is? Is it a cognitive dissonance thing? If they settle something semantically in their brain they feel like they don't have to worry about it anymore perhaps? Maybe it helps them feel like the ball is out of their court?

>The lost dialog of Plato!

Attached: fate.jpg (518x657, 89.91K)

No, it’s not about the argument at all. It’s about social dynamics that people are supposed to learn in adolescence. Entering a conversation in progress with strangers is already a bit of a risk that takes some charisma. Entering it for the sole purpose of antagonism is just antisocial and aggressive behavior.
It is not about the argument at all. It is purely a social skills thing.

Does this include online discussions?

No, unless it’s a christfag.

>Entering it for the sole purpose of antagonism is just antisocial and aggressive behavior.
Literally nothing wrong with aggressive behaviour, especially towards things that unjustly offend you. Not knowing how to handle aggressive behaviour is an indicator of poor social skills.

Socrates is trying to trigger self-reflection. those who use terms like "sealioning" are, like vampires, afraid of the consequences of looking in the mirror

You handle it by telling them to fuck off.

>it seems like Socrates was doing exactly this.
Yes, and they killed him because it was annoying.
Most people just aren’t interested in the truth or debating things.

Because they want to use, abuse, and replace them.
All with tax breaks for being diverse.

Most people are midwits, and a crowd of people is always stronger than any individual. They could rip you to pieces if they wanted to. And you're scaring away all the pussy. I don't see anything "dishonest" about that. Muggers are "dishonest" for beating the shids out of you and taking your stuff

Life's a peach when you're a bunch of Jims and everyone you don't agree with is a Dwight

Im not gay enough to watch the office lmao

And mb, the last sentence was meant to be a question "Are muggers "dishonest" for beating the shids out of you and taking your stuff?"

The normie mind understands the world as governed by cruel power dynamics. Women especially think this way, they might be right

Not related to anything but I can’t look at any drawings of sealions without thinking about Strega.

Sealioning is trannyspeak gobblygook. Don't bring it up in the same sentence as socrates pls

>Socra-teasing

might is indeed right

Why do we need a new term/word for this?

>antisocial
I assume that you're an NPC faggot if you use words like this unironically.

Is a cross examination in court an example of sealioning?

>SEALIONING
I think this got replaced with
>YOU'RE GASLIGHTING
>I'M BEING GASLIGHTED
>BRO DID YOU JUST GASLIGHT

Attached: 1649571865655.jpg (2842x2841, 516.1K)

misology is... LE GOOD

Attached: 1614639676944.gif (295x221, 553.69K)

This is funny but in reality he would just assault them both.

I assume you’re mentally disabled.

>overhear strangers say aren’t an invitation
Except this comic is a response to people interjecting on comment threads on public forums or on twitter so there's no assumption of privacy at play.

It is about the argument and you fucking know it you disingenuous faggot cunt nigger. This is nothing more than another word for slope-headed apes to shun discourse and divergent thought, another word for them to spew at those that want to use their fucking brains and forego social conventions in favor of wit. It's just more misology-speak for midwits to drive into the fucking ground like they did with "gaslighting".

Come on man, get the social organism's cock out of your mouth. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, even if it makes idiots seethe, and there is nothing wrong with "antisocial" behavior. Just another word for bootlickers and 80IQ goyim to throw at things that make them uncomfortable.