Jump to content

Talk:Sealioning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Block quotes

[edit]

In the Description section we have two large block quotes. I fear they may be WP:COPVIOs. Any thoughts on that? Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. They're just quotes, and not even large at all. — Smuckola(talk) 21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but large quotes like that are frequently boiled down for that reason. I'm rusty on the subject so let's see what if anything others say. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is technical/academic stuff (and contentious in places), and I think it is better to have the proper quote as used (properly attributed) than a summarised version of it, which would be prone to its own POV. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable examples of sealioning?

[edit]

It's interesting that the internet is full of explanations of what sealioning *is*, in abstract, but for those who haven't actually *seen* sealioning, those abstract definitions are very unhelpful, and could even be harmful.

All "sealioning" seems to be, on the surface, is a mocking word for those who ask questions. People shouldn't be afraid to ask questions when there's something they don't know! This is an important basis of any type of constructive discussion. This whole term could be extremely toxic where-ever someone would be accused of sealioning, quieting sincere questions. Maybe notable examples would be warranted in a wikipedia article, to illustrate why this term exists? Surely it shouldn't be hard to find actual examples, given how easy it is to find a definition. --Sigmundur (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not simply for people who are genuinely inquisitive. The difference is in the intent of the questioning, and refusal to accept others' boundaries once the lack of interest in a debate is made clear. Statements that are common knowledge, or well known within a specific community that the sealion has no interest in being a part of, or someone sharing their personal experiences or feelings, are met with relentless calls for evidence and demands for debates, often escalating to other methods - frequently inviting someone over text who has no interest in communicating with them directly to voice chat, for example. Obviously, nobody owes anyone else an argument just because someone asks for one, but sealions will not take no for an answer. No amount of evidence will ever be enough, because that isn't their goal, and their minds cannot be changed. That's a distinct difference from "a mocking word for those who ask questions". 2604:3D08:957D:6200:4CA8:F1F5:1346:1756 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any because the entire concept of sealioning is... a stonewall.
""The term gained popularity as a way to describe a specific type of online trolling, and it was used to describe some of the behavior of those participating in the Gamergate harassment campaign.
In a 2016 study published in First Monday focusing on users of the Gamergate subreddit /r/KotakuInAction, participants were surveyed about what they believed constituted "harassment". Participants were quoted stating that "expressions of sincere disagreement" were considered harassment by opponents of the forum and that the term sealioning was used to silence legitimate requests for proof.
In 2021, Maclean's compared its origination to other terms derived from comic strips that became common speech such as Brainiac (1958 comic book) and Milquetoast (from the 1924 comic strip). Maclean's noted that Malki had mixed feelings about the term, quoting him as saying: "I didn't set out to coin a phrase. I just wanted to make an observation", and "The core of what I set out to criticize is just the notion that any random patient stranger should feel entitled to as much of someone's attention as they want".
this whole block here is gaslighting.
it was peopel trying to correct
This sealioning thing is just a refuge for individuals who want to be able to drop misinformation and not have to back them up. According to the logic above, anytime a citizen asked a politician a question they didn't like, they'd be sealioning. Every time a journalist asked an uncomfortable question or asked for evidence of something, they'd be sea-lion- ing.
sealioning is a way to discredit, abuse, and stonewall any information.
https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate
in fact. the whole thing as "gamergate is a harassment campaign" is false.
especially when gamergate took a harasser of anita sarkesian down Jason shrier still Managed to twist GamerGate catching the harasser Mateus Sousa into an article blaming GamerGate's "atmosphere" for Sousa's actions.
https://archive.is/Rz8u1 MisteOsoTruth (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there isn't any examples. sea lioning is an ad hominem.
the whole term was co-opted from the source comic so that people could shut other conversations down with a simple word. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: here's an example from SSC comments: 

  The first notable sealion in usenet history is probably Sedar Argic, a bot that replied to every instance of the word ‘turkey’ with a long copypasta denying the armenian genocide — which became problematic around thanksgiving.
It's typically not about asking questions to genuinely gain knowledge, it's typically about bad faith question-asking because the sealion (incorrectly) thinks that any statement on social media is an invitation to public debate. If you're asking a stranger a question you already know the answer to because you want to use the other person's response as the setup to some logical argument you want to make against their position, then you're probably being a sealion. (If someone is into that sort of thing then instead of hassling strangers, they should join a debate club.)
But to answer your actual question, I don't think naming and shaming individual trolls is a good idea. I think that would be tricky for a number of reasons, including BLP and not feeding the trolls. ApLundell (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because it is an open forum. the accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith.
"I think the earth is flat"
"actually that isn't true, you see.."
"YOU'RE SEALIONING ME. i'm a victim"
It's basic social power dynamics and manipulation.
Sealion may happen as described but the power dynamic is more often this just like saying a slur or some other insult Or continue to engage in one of the largest misinformation campaigns in which wikipedia was a part of. instantly cutting off any sort of criticism by mocking the interlocuter and crying victim while doing it.
it's anti intellectual drek. and it was co oopted by people who knew they were doing a shut down.
Social media isn't soemone's car or bed roo where you can whisper racist remarks to your loved one in secret. Or Be an antivaxer uncriticized.
https://archive.org/details/sealioning_20250607/sea%20lions%20on%20twitter.png
i mean it's all bloody there. just on every twitter thread. it's not harassment to ask someone for the burden of proof. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's harassment to insist that a stranger owes you literally anything.
Being wrong is not a crime, and it does not generate a debt. Nobody owes you the opportunity to entertain yourself by proving them wrong.
Believing that everybody you happen to notice expressing an opinion is now your opponent in a formal debate is delusional. ApLundell (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ha·rass·ment
/həˈrasm(ə)nt,ˈherəsm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: harassment; plural noun: harassments
aggressive pressure or intimidation.
a comment or someone calling somebody stupid for being a flat earther is not harassment.trying to engage in debate to expose that flat earther or Holocaust denier should not be seen as harassment.
who said anything about owing anything to anybody?the word sea lioning and it's use is a shutdown tactic.it's stonewalling. it is an insult to frame someone. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a flat-earther doesn't want to engage with you, how could insisting that they do so be anything other than harassment?
Being wrong on the Internet is not a crime punishable by being forced to amuse bored randos who think they're experts at debating people. ApLundell (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo at top

[edit]

I have reason to believe that the captioned photo at the top of the entry is not of a sealion, but of a seal, which is not sealioning, but looking for food. And I don't believe the text bubbles were actually said.

I feel that this undermines both the veracity and credibility of this article, while disrespecting both this seal and sealions in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.163.237 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to File:Sealioning.png – if so, I can assure you the pictured animal is a sea lion, not a seal, and is in fact trying to debate the man in the photo. Do you have evidence to back up your opinions? Iiii I I I (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this whole gosh darn article is giving credence to an insult. of course no one owes you debate that is natural. but seeing lion and how it was used is used to simply discredit individuals. a flat earther or Holocaust denier could say oh your sea lioning me if you're questioning me. you are harassing me because I can't spit my views in public. it's not a good idea to give such awful people that kind of tool.it really is in most cases an ad hominem especially with the lack of notable examples. if someone makes a blatantly fault statement and somebody asks them about that even when they know something about the topic at hand then you can just say their sea lining you and get away with continuing to spread misinformation. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the whole first paragraph is a pretext.

[edit]
Wikipedia talk pages aren't intended to be used as a forum. MisteOsoTruth is wilfully WP:NOTGETTINGIT while having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. This going nowhere.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Sealioning is pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. The term originated from a webcomic by David Malki in 2014 and has been used to describe some of the behavior of Gamergate participants."

Social media isn't soemone's car or bed roo where you can whisper racist remarks to your loved one in secret. Or Be an antivaxer uncriticized.



the accusation of bad faith itself with no basis or a false basis is bad faith. Only to cry "harassment" when you promote misinformation. not dissimilar how flat-earthers and anti-vaxers have pet names for anyone that isn't on their side. Then cry victim when their kid is taught the facts in school.


Sealion may happen as described but the power dynamic is more often this just like saying a slur or some other insult Or continue to engage in one of the largest misinformation campaigns in which wikipedia was a part of. instantly cutting off any sort of criticism by mocking the interlocuter and crying victim while doing it.

https://archive.org/details/sealioning_20250607/sea%20lions%20on%20twitter.png

seriously. the fbi isn't a source or brad glasgow isn't a source? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what changes you want to be made to the article. D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the whole gosh darn phenomenon is and ad hominem and an insult and a way to discredit. of course no one is owed a debate but let's say there's a holocaust denier or a flat Earth theorist spouting their crap. if you or I were to engage with that person or try to understand and expose them that would somehow be misconstrued as harassment.
just as the targets and those who actually use the word an invented the word we're guilty of some of the worst misinformation campaigns that still persist today despite the evidence of the contrary MisteOsoTruth (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a type of harassment/trolling, it is not an ad hominem or fallacy or argument defense. It would be ad hominem to say someone's argument is invalid because you think they are Sealioning but that's not really what the article is about. This is not a forum and you've still failed to explicitly state what you would like to change in the article, you just seem to be annoyed at the concept in general. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://archive.org/details/sealioning_20250607/sea%20lions%20on%20twitter.png
well what do you replace a tire fire with? hell in to what we'd have to change would be "beyond the scope" or something something something. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need actual concrete changes, just saying "oh it's a tire fire" isn't helping your case here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FIRST OF ALL. it's used to mischaracterize a consumer movment and group that WASN'T harassing.
it's a put down. it was co opted from the original comic to accuse others of bad faith. preemptively. to preemptively poison the well in any sort of conversation. of any sort of nuance. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns about the subject are noted, however they are unwarranted. Criticism of racists and anti-vaxxers (and homophobes, and climate deniers, and creationists, and trumpers, and flat-earthers and neo- all the rest) is never done under the false pretense of a civil discussion as that would actually contribute to the normalization of these positions. Which is precisely why sealioning is in fact a favorite tactic employed by these very same unsavory elements.
Now unless you have you can provide examples of reliable sources critiquing the use of the term, we could add that to the article, but you did not provide any such thing. 46.97.170.26 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://archive.org/details/sealioning_20250607/sea%20lions%20on%20twitter.png you mean this?
its like you forget ad homs exist. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source. A seemingly random compilation of comments on archive.org wouldn't be considered reliable for any topic, let alone this one. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep linking a meme and claiming the FBI is the source of the meme? It's not in any of the documents in the vault you linked.
The earliest source for the meme I can find is a banned KnowYourMeme user called AugustDay: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/872327-sea-lioning
Anyway your argumentation here is nonsense rambling. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"you're nonsense rambling".
the archive adn stuff is ... there. and i'm saying the FBi is in thre because THE FIRST PARAGRAPH MENTIONS GAMERGATE. and the WHOLE THIN WITH THE FBI found it to NOT be a harassment group just like the Woman's Action in Media group when they looked at the block list.
how do you all not know? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nonsense rambling. nice. very good. thanks for the dismissal. it was co opted from the original comic to accuse others of bad faith. preemptively. to preemptively poison the well in any sort of conversation. of any sort of nuance.
like... what's happening now. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
did you just... not read? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Just so we're clear, you believe that cartoon is an official publication created internally by the USA's federal government?
You think someone at the FBI, no doubt wearing a suit and tie, sat down and drew that cartoon and then published it in his official capacity?
Because that's what the word "source" means in this context. Whether you mean to or not, that is what you are claiming. ApLundell (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no. but there is other shit going on. i don't know you you got that from all of that. especially when that is seperate yet tangental but LORD. are you being obtuse? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it was co opted from the original comic to accuse others of bad faith. preemptively. to preemptively poison the well in any sort of conversation. of any sort of nuance.
like... what's happening now.
I mean who cares about the reports and the WAM study that's all but lost to time *unless i got an archive of that too), right? MisteOsoTruth (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original website link?

[edit]

I was going to add a link to https://wondermark.com/c/1062/, since the image doesn't blow up very big for my old eyes, but then I remembered "Chesterton's Fence. So, is there a better reason than "nobody's added the link yet" for not linking it? Malatr (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link is actually already there. It's the first external link. No offense to your old eyes, but you must have missed it. ApLundell (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OH! Way down there. I thought it would have been one of the References; the first Reference, really. Thank you.
Although, this seems like it reinforces the idea that the link is in the wrong place?
"Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "other websites" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an "Other websites" section. Exceptions—websites that can be both references and "Other websites"—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages and meet the above criteria." https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Links_to_other_websites#:~:text=Exceptions%E2%80%94websites%20that%20can%20be,websites%20that%20are%20specifically%20devoted
It's a minor quibble, and I'll happily defer to experienced editors after this last stab at it. Malatr (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is also source #23. (In the Origins and History section) and, of course, linked in the image's info page. ApLundell (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FFS. While you're schooling me, is there a button around here somewhere for "slink off sheepishly"?
I appreciate you cordially* pointing these things out.
  • The common meaning, did not know about the secondary option until 90 seconds ago; it's a real learning day for me, apparently.
Malatr (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sealioning&oldid=1301846417"