• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s a clever method of trolling. But if you come prepared and/or are willing to put some effort in, you actually can wreck them with evidence and sound arguments that shuts them completely up.

    This is very satisfying.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.

      Often the troll will just shift slightly and keep making demands regardless of evidence.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Don’t let them dictate the convo. You can assert control as well, don’t let them lead uncontested.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s easier said than done, but it can be done. The key is to unleash your inner troll and embrace the “u mad bro” while being

          I recommend engaging once or twice in good faith, then hounding them to make a hard claim you can disprove. If they don’t, start politely asking if there’s any part they’d like to elaborate on while dropping implications they didn’t read or understand what you said, and then asking about their beliefs on the topic.

          It happened to me on Lemmy a while ago, I don’t think the guy was actually a troll (I think he just didn’t like what I had to say about the world bank and imf being the reason central and South America have stayed so poor despite incredible natural resources)

          The dude got so mad he started going through my old posts and calling me a hypocrite. But he made a mistake, that was a hard claim - there was no contradiction in my beliefs and stance. I slapped him down a few times before realizing my posts from days ago were getting a lot of responses

          Once I started recognizing the username and realized what happened, I started getting patronizing… It was oh so satisfying. I kind of wish he’d kept going for longer

          I love reverse trolling trolls, all of the fun and none of the guilt

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Remember the original discussion and don’t take the bait to deviate. “We are not talking about X, we are talking about Y as originally posted by OP and I will not follow you down your rabbit hole.”

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It depends too much on way too many factors. Generally I’ll be almost as polite as they’re being.

            Convos usually involve turn-taking though, so once you’ve provided evidence or a sound argument, you should not be forced to do it again. It should be their turn to assert something, and then possibly have to provide whatever.

            Just don’t let the opportunity pass to treat them exactly, or potentially slightly worse, depending, than they’re treating you. Don’t stay on defense, assert, ask questions, directly contradict, whatever is needful.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            For me, relentless mockery is best

            Inform them that you’re wise to their game, and furthermore, they’re an idiot. Doesn’t cede the field to them but doesn’t let them persist in bad faith questions.

            Internet arguments are like a rock paper scissors game of evidence based arguments, sealioning, and good old fashioned trolling.

          • Sybil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            i don’t answer questions (present thread excepted). i insist someone say plainly what it is they are getting at. and if they refuse that’s that. if they persist in asking, i tell them not to be petulant. and if they present an argument, and it’s sound, i usually just let that stand. if it’s unsound, i let them know.

            and, of course, one of the best ways is to never take a strong position yourself that can be sealioned.

    • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s also frustrating because there are people who are sincerely trying to discuss in good faith while having a different opinion, which is camouflage for the sealion trolls.

      Of course, people increasingly forget about the former group completely, and react with hostility… It’s understandable, but unfortunate for healthy discussion.

      At least in your case, your response is to lay out robust arguments to explain your position, which is productive regardless of whether they’re trolling or sincere. I’ve learned a great deal over the years from strangers on the internet putting a clinic on someone who may or may not have been trolling.

      • zeppo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Accusing people of “sealioning” is a great way to not have to defend or discuss poorly thought out or sourced claims.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          True, which is why if someone accuses you of sealioning you should be prepared to explain your position and the reasoning you used to get there. Not asking questions of them but instead explaining your own position.

          • zeppo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The problem I see is when the original poster didn’t explain their point of view, but complain when you ask them to clarify.

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Well, in the specific case provided in the comic, the sealion has no position he can explain since the other side refuses to even establish how he got to his opinion.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        So, the issue is that behaviorwise they’re indistinguishable from each other.

        Intentionally or unintentionally ignoring signals that a person isn’t interested in debate or discussion with you is just as annoying to the person being bothered either way.

        It doesn’t matter if your intentions are sincere or not when you decide to pester someone into a debate they’re not interested in having.

        • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah true, the persistent pestering component is arguably always trolling. I guess that’s one of the signals that you can use to distinguish.

          I can still think of gray areas, but I guess that’s why it’s effective camouflage.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            Another signal is their complete lack of interest in anything you’ve said outside of what they want to pester you about.

    • Revonult@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Care to provide any evidence to support this claim? I would like to have a civil discussion with you about this. /s

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Just an anecdotal account. I was expressing my own experiences and how they make me feel, for which it would be challenging and largely unnecessary to provide evidence to a random dumbass on the internet, yes?

        /not s, an example

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          If your feelings are irrational, it’s incumbent on you as a rational person to examine them and separate emotion from fact. Since you have no facts to back up your feelings, clearly the feelings are irrational and should not be used to inform your actions or viewpoints, correct?

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Not if I’m recounting a personal experience, no. Humans are not purely rational creatures, otherwise laissez faire capitalism would solve all the world’s problems.

            If I wished to be purely rational, then perhaps. But personally I do not think all feelings are worth disregarding.

            • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Would you mind providing evidence of a scenario in which it’s good to be irrational? Because it sounds like you have some level of distaste for being rational, but I’m not seeing any source to back that up.

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                No, that’s a frankly absurd request. What is or is not “good” is not something sourceable, it’s an entirely subjective question. What makes you think everything has some definitive source?

                • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Excuse you, I’m being polite here and you’re calling me absurd. Can’t a person have a civil conversation without devolving into name-calling? And why haven’t you given a source? Are you unable to back up your claims, or are you unwilling to engage in rational dialogue?

                  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I’m sorry, but if you want me to remain what you’d define as civil, you’re going to need to be reasonable, not ridiculous. You haven’t answered my question. Where does this belief all things are sourceable come from?

              • daltotron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Would you mind providing evidence of a scenario in which it’s good to be irrational?

                I think I found the seal club, guys.

                Asking someone to provide evidence of a scenario in which something is irrational is an irrational thing to ask. I’ll state why with a kind of example. So, say you have the choice between two boxes of corn flakes. You look between the two, and you decide to pick one. You, you specifically, decide to pick one. Perhaps, the red one, over the blue one, I can’t state this for you. Make up a reason why you chose that box. Now, this reason, which you have chosen, would it necessarily be a rational reason, for you to have chosen the box you did?

                Presumably, yes, unless you’re going to argue against yourself, and say that, in this instance, it’s actually good to be irrational. In this instance, then, you’ve made a rational decision, you had a reason to believe the thing that you did. Now, taking this example, and what I’ve formerly said, about you not being irrational, in mind, can you think of any given scenario in which you’ve ever made an irrational decision? Perhaps you can, even, and it was bad, but also, presumably, you thought it was a rational decision at the time. It was probably (here is maybe where it gets iffy) only in hindsight, that you thought your previous belief was irrational.

                Taking this into account, and extrapolating off of that experience, we can intuit that they probably didn’t mean what you meant when you (not you, the other guy, but also you right now I suppose) said the word “irrational”, they don’t share your definition of it. Because, kind of, based on these examples I’ve given, there would never be a circumstance in which it would make sense, i.e., “be rational”, for someone to make an irrational decision. This is a straight paradox, if we take that definition to be what they meant.

                Then, considering this, right, we can assume they probably meant something else, other than what you have assumed. I will not claim to know what they meant.

                Blam, sea lion that, motherfucker. You probably can if you tried really hard, but blam. Sea lion it. (this could be a pretty good example of sea-lioning, too, I gave you some pretty low-stakes, specific stuff to contest, there, that isn’t really part of the main argument, i.e. it’s the definition of a sealion).

                • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Nah, I don’t feel like it. But if I were to do so, I’d probably say something like “this is laughably absurd, come back when you know how to debate” so as to avoid letting you steer the conversation.

    • xor@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      they don’t shut up though, they just change topics
      e.g. @clubbing4198/lemmy.world