What exactly is sealioning?
In: 319
It is a bullshit term that was invented by people who didn’t like that their assumptions were being challenged.
It used to be, before ~2014, that if you posted something to the Internet, you obviously were inviting people to civilly disagree with it or challenge your assumptions. Otherwise why would you post it, if you didn’t want to debate it?
Around the time that this term was invented (certainly not coincidentally), this changed. Now people just want to live within their little bubbles of like-minded people, and that’s if they’re not actively trying to censor the other side talking even to each other. Hardly any open-minded people on the Internet anymore.
The term means basically “someone challenges the basic assumptions of my thinking and I don’t like that”. It would be great if we could again have places to debate contentious issues on the Internet, but people clearly don’t want that.
Internet abused terms like gaslighting, guilt tripping, straw man fallacy, dichotomy whatnot and now are ready for another one
It’s a real thing that people frequently do online – it’s terrible and it needed to be addressed. It’s also now a thing people can (and do) claim is happening anytime they can’t answer a question and want to escape a conversation without admitting error. The internet is terrible.
Alternative take. I’m sealioning this weekend
Wife and kids both away and there’s sooo much sport to watch. The only thing getting me off the lounge for the next 48hrs is UberEats
It’s when you’re losing an argument so you start moving around on your belly and clapping your hands together.
When the opposition makes their points you just respond “ooh ooh”
Typically this is followed by moving to a fish only diet.
Some take it so far as to fully become aquatic.
It’s a logical fallacy known as an ad sigillim attack.
Sealioning is someone trying to win an argument asking the other person to back everything up with sources and proof. No amount of proof or sources are good enough for them. They have no real intention to agree with you after you show them proof. They just want you to look bad because you “obviously can’t back up what you’re saying with any facts.”
That’s not to say it’s wrong to ask for a source or some sort of proof to back up a claim, but when you’re sealioning, you don’t really care about the proof.
Example 1: (Not sealioning)
A: Did you know that drowning in a pool is the leading cause of death for kids under 4?
B: That doesn’t sound right, do you have any proof?
A: (provides proof)
B: Wow, I had no idea.
Example 2: (Sealioning)
A: Did you know that drowning in a pool is the leading cause of death for kids under 4?
B: That doesn’t sound right, do you have any proof?
A: (provides proof)
B: No way, that’s (insert newspaper here) They are obviously liars.
A: (provides more sources)
B: No that’s biased, also what about (theory from random guy on the internet)?
A: He can have his opinion, but the majority of the data backs up what I said.
B: Well you still haven’t shown me any actual proof from a real source, so you are just full of shit, and making things up as you go along.
Due to Google it doesn’t have *too* much credibility though. I get it but you can just tell the sealioner to look it up themselves.
What’s the comparison to sea lions?
It’s when someone asks for proof of basic facts with no intention of having an honest discussion.
So if someone were to premise their argument on “the earth is flat” and then when you say that’s preposterous they insist that you prove it to them. Then when you do, they question that evidence, sometimes by using fringe websites and youtube videos as “sources,” and demand additional proof until you get fed up.
*Explain to you? Why should I explain to you?*
*Give me 10 good reasons why I should bother to take the time to explain it in a format easily digestible by a toddler?*
Repeat that infinitely regardless of the proof provided, and you win the argument.
Latest Answers