Sealioning, no not the animal, the behavior on social media and a point

[irisblue]

From wiki- "Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility.... It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate."...The troll pretends ignorance and feigns politeness, so that if the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party....Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in concert"...
( there is more at that site)

From--http://simplikation.com/recognizing-sealioning/

snip--"Self-Promotion Over Understanding
The final, and ugliest, part of sealions is their total commitment to self-aggrandizement. Nowhere is that clearer than when you accuse them of sealioning.

Whenever a sealion is called a sealion, they often take a thoroughly narcissistic stance. "If you can't handle logic, facts, and evidence, why are you making statements in public?" - as though their statements are logical, factual, or self-evident - is common, as is "I'm being logical, you're just emotional." The implication is that you, as a person unwilling or unable to deal with several people yelling at you over and over to educate them on basic topics, are unfit to engage in discussions of any significance.

Of course, that's patently ridiculous. Much like a baby fed something they dislike, sealions simply spit up the information you spoon feed them if it doesn't fit their preconcieved worldviews. It's a unique blend of egotism and confirmation bias, and is one of the hallmarks of sealioning; sealions are interested only in spreading their gospel, not discussion or refuting points"
( more at website)


As it gets closer to the general election, more sealions will visit. A tell for me, a thread with dozens/hundred replies.


I love the 'beach' of social media, but these sealions are best viewed at a distance by me.

[comradebillyboy]

1. There is no shortage of sea lions right here at DU.

[Bucky]

18. Can you prove that? Do you have any stats to back that up? Oh, your post aggrieves me! *faints*

[comradebillyboy]

29. I've been watching Trump so maybe I can make up some compelling stats

to support my case.

Did you know that 18.375% of DUers engage in aggressive sea lioning. Further, 99.713% of the best people agree with me. This is all well documented In the most recent 'Journal of Irreproducible Results', Jan 2025 edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Irreproducible_Results

[DownriverDem]

43. I wonder if

folks here know that DU supports Democrats?

[comradebillyboy]

47. At a minimum 86.324% do support Democrats

[wryter2000]

50. Journal of Irreproducible Results

I haven't thought about them for an age.

[dameatball]

68. But do 99.713% of the best people agree with you 100%???

[comradebillyboy]

70. Sometimes they do

[dameatball]

74. Can't argue with that!

[lillypaddle]

66. YES!

They actually swarm! Mixed metaphor, but yeah, plenty sea lions here.

[LiberalLovinLug]

73. And this "SeaLioning" is a bad thing?

I'm not trying to be obtuse. But if someone goes off on a rant, spewing all kinds of "facts" they have heard somewhere, and I come on and ask......politely at that!, oh the horror........for links to back up their claim. And if they then just continue to spread this fake news, ignoring me, and so I do not relent, and keep on them about providing links to prove their claims, I am a Sea Lion?


lol. It looks more like to me, that these kinds of posters, that love to post their baseless opinion, or a conspiracy theory, to push their own biases and self deluded beliefs, in order to get some kind of perceived status or value in a conversation, and know they can't back it up, have found their own new catch phrase to call any other poster who dares to annoy them with demands of proof of what they say.

I don't get it. It sounds more like a deplorable invention to call those damn "angry libruls" that annoy them with those pesky fact things. How rude to politely ask for factual backup of a statement. And persisting in asking for it?...Now you are just being nasty! You should just swim away and let me and my little circle of fellow true believers just believe what we want and leave us alone!

[comradebillyboy]

78. Asking for facts to support a position one has taken is fine.

Being deliberately obtuse and failing to grasp the most elementary argument is not. Making up one's own definitions and expecting others to accept the novel interpretation is not OK to me.

[LiberalLovinLug]

83. I would agree with being deliberately obtuse

and pretending to not understand, is something to be detested and annoyed by. I know what you mean. I've run into these kinds before. But it does not take long to realize, for most in a thread, they are just taking a piss, so to speak, and are easily defanged if one just posts the links of support for your facts.

Then....if they continue on, they just look like the fools they are. Especially if they STILL have no facts of their own to counter. Even if they still have the arrogance to think they are STILL right, especially if they do, others in a thread will be able to see for themselves who has the facts and who is just throwing back some meaningless meme that is meant to deflect from their lack of substance. Heck, its even fun after that point in ridiculing the RW asshole, who has nothing to stand on, from the thread. Not on this site but others that are more open to running into MAGATs.

The only ones that would make good use of trying to create a new powerful net meme like this are right wing trolls or any person that lives in a bubble and gets their "facts" from their gut. Like they create terms like "alternate facts" or "fake news". If one now harangues them too much about providing facts they have a new handy dandy meme to throw back. If enough use it, it becomes legit.

Stupid meme for stupid people to use to defend their ignorance. There is no other reason for it.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. And here I thought that was called Dinesh D'Souzaing. NT

[JHB]

9. It's older than D'Ishonest D'zaster

Maybe not the term, but definitely the tactic.

(OK, I just wanted to use "D'Ishonest D'zaster" in a post)

[Bucky]

20. D'Ishonest D'zaster

[irisblue]

10. @KevinMKruse, on twitter, is a brilliant historian and has a sub specialty on 'dunkin' on Dinesh'

or 'Dineshing' -persistant/consistant need for social media attention even when you are objectively in error.


And in truth, his books on contemporary American History are amazing, and worth the reading time.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

21. a thread of all the *other* historians who've debunked @DineshDSouza on Twitter.

I think I'd be pulling my hair out by this time.

Thanks.

Kevin M. Kruse Retweeted

A few days ago, someone in my mentions suggested I put together a thread of all the *other* historians who've debunked @DineshDSouza on Twitter.

Link to tweet

[irisblue]

22. Yeah I bookmarked that.

[smirkymonkey]

56. *snort*

[snort]

3. Got any evidence, please?

[irisblue]

5. I posted 2 websites.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[demmiblue]

4. I have most of the sealions on ignore.

But, yeah, look at the flaming threads and you will find them.

[LanternWaste]

6. I'd come across the term on DU a few years back

I'd come across the term on DU a few years back with a wonderful little cartoon to better illustrate it in action. I remember it actually received a LOT of push back and criticism at the time primarily from posters who have been FFR for some time.

[JHB]

8. Beat me to it.

[irisblue]

13. Thanks for the cartoon

My cheap android phone doesn't c&p those well.

[qazplm135]

44. well...

can you? I'm tending to agree with Mr. Sea Lion. There is no negative evidence that Sea Lions bother anyone.
I anxiously await your response.

[NurseJackie]

51. I know that user very well. One of at least three who used to continually follow me around DU...

I know that user very well. One of at least three who used to* continually follow me around DU, doing and saying things EXACTLY like that!

* meaning, none of them does that to me any longer. For some reason they're no longer visiting DU, and I'll just leave it at that.

[George II]

85. ....

[Autumn]

7. A lot of that goes on. It's so easy to spot people who do that and I've decided I don't need to play

their game. People that I know, like and appreciate having a conversation with or someone who actually wants a discussion I'm willing to engage. When someone who has the habit of sealioning responds to me on line or on FB, they get one reply. Then I'm done.

[tblue37]

11. Just curious: Why are they called sealions? nt

[irisblue]

15. Chech out post#6

When I first saw sea lions(animals) on TV, then in real life, I was struck by the freaking size of adult sea lions- bigger then my refrigerator & the noise they made. I think the term is an excellent analogy.

[tblue37]

17. Yes, I saw that. But I still don't understand what it is about the animal sea lion that

caused the choice of "sealion" for this type of troll in the first place.

[hatrack]

26. Because they pop up suddenly, bark and bellow, and then submerge again . .

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[tblue37]

31. Ah--now I understand. Thanks. nt

[RobinA]

33. As A Toddler

at the Philadelphia zoo I was scared to screaming terror by a sea lion. I will never forget it.

[maxsolomon]

55. Also, they never STFU.

Always hungry, always complaining. Incessant barking combined with lying about.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Also, they park themselves right in the way and won't budge

The Marina in San Francisco knows them well.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Large, aggressive and smelling of fish?

[lpbk2713]

12. This is a good OP to bookmark for future reference.

Thanks.

[irisblue]

35. :blush:

[melman]

14. Tons of that here

One of the worst offenders is so proud of it they even have a sea lion in their sig.

[ismnotwasm]

23. That's not why the sealioning is in their signature line

[melman]

24. Your opinion

I happen to disagree.

[ismnotwasm]

27. I know who you are talking about

It’s not an opinion, and why would you say such a thing?

[melman]

28. Look

You're not going to draw me into a long thing on this. You have your opinion. I have mine. The end.

[ismnotwasm]

30. That's not my style

The poster is a friend of mine, who noticed this sealioning technique, and put it in his sig line as a way to acknowledge it. I’ve had conversations with him about it. I’m more than happy to end this conversation with the truth.

[R B Garr]

77. This is a complete misrepresentation on your part.

Your opinion has no validity since you are trying to change the entire history. Let’s make a note of that,

[Cha]

86. Haha.. No, it's Not "the end" just

because you say so. You made an untrue accusation.

[George II]

92. It's not an opinion.

[demmiblue]

41. I hadn't seen that.

I went to my ignore list and picked who I thought you were talking about... yep!

Sometimes I can only see 50% of a thread due to that one.

[melman]

58. Amazing

that you could figure that out just based on post history and without having seen the sig.

I say amazing because I've been assured that it has nothing to do with any behavior.

In fact, the person that assured me was aghast at the mere suggestion.

[ismnotwasm]

71. This post reminds me of a biblical quote

Matthew 7:5

[brer cat]

91. +++

[LanternWaste]

61. I'd imagine they use it draw attention to the concept rather than illustrate an alleged pride.

[mcar]

79. This is inappropriate

Calling out another DUer is wrong. As you are about this poster.

[Eliot Rosewater]

87. All I can say is if certain things happen again, we better all start learning russian.

[George II]

84. ....

[sheshe2]

88. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NurseJackie]

93. ...

[Hortensis]

89. Imo, Melman, that person is one of the more thoughtful

and balanced posters here, who never plays the hostile games too many indulge in. I always read what he writes, when I see it.

Why not find one of his posts and take your opinion directly to him, instead of slipping it in here? Or better yet, drop it.

[zipplewrath]

16. Strawmen

I think I get what the definition is about, the problem is that there is this area of gray for me around the problem of strawmen arguments. We see alot of people making OP's around here about what "liberals" say, or what "Bernie Bro's" are saying. Some times it is even worse where you get the vague "I'm getting tired of people complaining about..."

So I often ask for a specific example. Context is everything and especially when I'm not familiar with the particular assertion, a reference is useful. Far too often you get a response of the form "all you have to do is google..." or "there are plenty of examples right here on DU" without of course an actual specific example.

So is it Sea Lioning to suggest that without a specific example there's not much to discuss?

[irisblue]

34. I can see your points. It is a grey area

From Wiki-and there is lots & lots more there about straw men &straw man arguments-
snip-'A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."


From my POV, if I name and point out a particular poster or thread, it is very likely is a TOS violation on civility, and on DU juries I have voted to hide. I cannot feel comfortable doing that myself. I have sent a private message asking for clarification, sometimes I do get replies.


For me, if I see a repeat series, (2/3 or more), of posts/ threads, with leading on questions to individual replys w/o more explainations of the originator poster POV, that points the sealioning behavior out to me. Other DU members will/may feel differently.

This is an internet discussion board, sometimes the discussions are informative and enlightening and useful, sometimes, it's just a jerk being a jerk.

[zipplewrath]

37. I do get that part

From my POV, if I name and point out a particular poster or thread, it is very likely is a TOS violation on civility, and on DU juries I have voted to hide. I cannot feel comfortable doing that myself. I have sent a private message asking for clarification, sometimes I do get replies.

This is a complication of the TOS around here. You want to discuss a particular point of view that appears to be common, but to actually single out one or two posters could be seen as a conflict. About all I can suggest is copying the content (and reposting) and not identifying the source. I presume, lacking something in the associated observations that could be seen as hostile, it should cover the reference within the TOS.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Not sealioning to ask for credible links/refs. Sealioning to never be satisfied & never stop. . .nt

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I have never seen this at DU. No, not once. Ever.

I also love irony.

[Bucky]

25. I have to own up to being guilty of this

There's a Facebook discussion group I participate in which is about 65% RWNJs by headcount and about 80% RWNJs by post-count.
They make a LOT of posts that make sweeping prejudicial statements about Clinton or Obama or Ocasio-Cortes or liberals in general (whom they usually call socialists) and especially irrelevant shit about abortion. They're not sophisticated at all; some days it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I hold their feet to the fire. I call them out. I post stats and links and logical arguments. But I also constantly ask them to provide examples of whatever bullshit they're spewing. My goal is to draw their own cognitive dissonance to their attention. My motives are at least 30% perverse, since I know I won't "win over" most of them. I'm partly there for the joy of disrupting their echo chamber. And I think what I do is a social utility. I think they need to hear how the other half thinks.

Am I a sea lion? I prefer to think of myself as a missionary among the heathens.

[Caliman73]

90. I think that it is contextual.

If you are doing it with the intention of disrupting, then I would say that you are guilty of sealioning. If you are doing it with the genuine intention of getting information, then no.

I think that sometimes people are quick to accuse others of trolling, or sealioning, or other disruptive tactics when there is a genuine request for information.

I often like to ask what the motivation or emotions are behind a certain response. I rarely get answers to those questions. Sometimes I get snarky comments. My thinking is like that of the alleged sea lion, if you don't want to discuss an issue, then don't respond. I am going to ask questions because I really want to know "who, what, when, where, why, etc..."

[bearsfootball516]

32. I'm not really sure where I fall on this.

I don't believe in harassing people, of course. But at the same time, I don't see why there's anything wrong with asking for evidence to back up a statement. I always check to see if what I'm posting is accurate before I hit send.

[zipplewrath]

38. Near as I can tell

the demarcation here is the multiple requests. You ask for references once. You either get them or don't. After that you apparently are obligated to disengage somehow, or choose to continue the discussion in the absence of support of the original position.

[LisaM]

82. Or asking someone to prove a negative...

or ignoring evidence someone's posted as if it's not there.

I remember getting in a pointless argument years ago with someone who refused to equivocate "particles" with "particulate matter" regarding pollution (this was not at DU, BTW) and the guy wouldn't let go, no matter how many times I linked to sources, pretended to be a world expert on the topic, and so on, with the apparent purpose of either wearing me down or driving me batty or discrediting the concept of pollution entirely (he seemed to be some shill for industry regarding climate change).

[ms liberty]

36. Interesting, I did not know it had a name apart from just

Trolls or of course that old standby, assholes. We've had people here with that behavior. Always cool to learn something new!

[grumpyduck]

39. Easy one.

Just ignore them.

[Panich52]

40. I had"debates" with a couple of those in 2016.

One was especially resistant to the idea of Russia's interference being stated in joint release by intel community. If only I knew then what I know know of russianbots and trolls...

[jayfish]

42. Isn't That Just Being Obtuse?

Whats with all the fake names for things with perfectly good existing names?

[irisblue]

45. I like & use the term "being obtuse" as well.

It is very similar in my POV. I think this is part of an evolving language

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
--James D. Nicoll

See, for example,
link http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Nicoll" and "cribhouse house whore" surely is a phrase of English worth a bit of research, so I did. British English & American English are interesting languages.

[jayfish]

49. Right, But "Sealioning".

Sounds completely made up (because it is) and tacky. Plus, without proof, I'm not even sure it's a real thing.

[NurseJackie]

52. ...

Plus, without proof, I'm not even sure it's a real thing.

[irisblue]

53. Okay, it is made up, as all language is.

Tacky is a judgement.

[lunatica]

67. It isn't a term you can intuitively guess at either

I’m pretty sure it won’t last simply because of that. It doesn’t make sense unless everyone knows it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. Nope. Some people just are dense. Sealioning is being WILLFULLY obtuse, repetitively, annoyingly. nt

[NewJeffCT]

46. and, if a person does get emotional/angry in a response

watch for the "sea lions" to mass report the person they're trolling.

[Oneironaut]

48. And, any source given to them is immediately ignored.

They’ll continue to badger you for a REAL source (which, unless if it 100% agrees with them, there can never be). Don’t waste your time with people like this.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. I didn't know there was a word for it, but there's plenty of it here.

[lunatica]

59. Obviously we need a whole new type of dictionary

on electronic words, meanings, vernacular, concepts and phraseology.

[JHB]

69. We already have it. Fer'instance...

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sealioning

Sealioning
A subtle form of trolling involving "bad-faith" questions. You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum. The name "sea-lioning" comes from a Wondermark comic strip.

I spent five minutes asking polite questions, sealioning him into hours of writing until he got exasperated and told me to fuck off.

The comic strip mentioned is the one in #6 upthread.

[jalan48]

60. I think it depends on whether the person asking the question is doing so in good faith-they really

want to have a discussion. For example, if someone says they have heard conflicting information on the seriousness of climate change and I say 97% of climatologists world wide say it's due to human behavior and 3% say otherwise. That should be enough to show that person that scientist's think it's real. If he/she then wants specific information on the veracity of the 97% I think that's sealioning. You don't have to be a scientist to recognize an overwhelming majority.

[lunatica]

72. It seems a term like pretentious reasonableness

would describe the activity so well that people could figure it out just by thinking for a couple of seconds. Why make up jargon that no one can intuit any meaning from?

Anyway that’s what I think, though I also believe that language is constantly evolving, so in a way a do appreciate this new term. If it persists I will gladly adopt it.

[jalan48]

75. Yes, the problem with online discussions is that many times the poster is just trolling

for an emotional response. There really is no interest in learning more about a subject.

[geardaddy]

62. K&R

Thanks for this!

[dewsgirl]

76. I see this everday on Twitter, I've seen it here quite a

few times.

[Hekate]

80. Ah, so that's what I've been seeing the past several days. The smell of fish should 've...

,,,tipped me off. And the barking.

[LisaM]

81. I'm glad someone put a name to it.

That kind of behavior annoys me excessively.

[JI7]

94. like the now banned TROLLberliner