You know I kind of find it funny that the internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just “people that I don’t like”. It doesn’t really matter whether or not the person is actually “sealioning” anymore, or whether or not the word ever had a definition in the first place, because it’s just something that you’re gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn’t like your line of argument, or the fact that you’ve disagreed with them, or whatever. Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there’s another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there’s another one.
Oops, you’re a troll, you’re a bot, you’re a sealion, you’re strawmanning my position, you’re arguing in bad faith. Signals get crossed over the written medium, anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they’re not. There’s better insurance, better strategies against that, then just kind of labeling it and then moving on.
I think the biggest problem is that labeling the behavior doesn’t really tell you what your response should be. If someone is arguing against you in bad faith, you sort of have the options of, arguing back against them in equal measure, equally bad faith, which I would say is the trap most people fall into. You also have the option of arguing against them as though you don’t recognize them as being in bad faith, while being as courteous and nice as possible, which can go some amount of the way to clarifying that you’re not arguing in bad faith if you’ve been mistaken. Or you can just not respond, which is probably a good idea. Don’t feed the troll, don’t reward them with attention.
But also, to some degree, someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn’t really matter. What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they’re arguing correctly. If they’re doing so incorrectly, then they’re not going to be giving you anything interesting to work off of, and then you should probably just ignore them. That’s my advice. It’s like, they’re just a more advanced form of spam, and the solution to spam is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
The internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just “people that I don’t like”
No, a lot of terms for people arguing in bad faith have originated on the internet because there’s a lot of different bad faith arguments on the internet.
Confusing sealioning and other bad faith arguing with “people that I don’t like” is a classic and common example of the bad faith trope called a strawman.
It doesn’t really matter whether or not the person is actually “sealioning”
It absolutely does. You can’t have a rational discussion with someone arguing in bad faith. Someone who’s wrong or seemingly wrong but arguing in good faith might learn something or cause you to learn something, whereas someone arguing in bad faith is only interested in “winning” and completely closed off to even the most valid counterpoints.
it’s just something that you’re gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn’t like your line of argument or the fact that you’ve disagreed with them, or whatever.
It really really isn’t. That you keep going on about this misconception implies that you’ve often been correctly accused of arguing in bad faith and are trying to fend that off by convincing others that there’s no such thing as bad faith, only subjective dislike. Which is objectively wrong.
Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there’s another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there’s another one.
The real irony is that you’re trying to terminate the thought that bad faith arguing exists via a bad faith use of a thought-terminating cliché.
anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they’re not
Again objectively false and saying a lot more about how YOU argue on the internet than internet discussion in general.
labeling the behavior doesn’t really tell you what your response should be
While that’s technically true, it’s much easier to know how to deal with something when you know WHAT you’re dealing with, whether you say it out loud or not.
someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn’t really matter.
That’s just ridiculously false. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they’re arguing correctly
…arguing in bad faith IS by definition a way of arguing incorrectly.
solution [to bad faith arguing] is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
Sure, but simple doesn’t always mean easy. Especially when you have poor impulse control and were brought up to consider it incredibly rude and disrespectful to not answer when someone’s trying to explain you something, whether they’re right or wrong.
See so my kneejerk response to this on seeing it, is, oh, someone’s going, literally line by line of my comment, and, line by line, refuting what I say. That’s what I would classically kind of think of as, oh, this is a bad faith argument, especially because you extrapolate from my post and say, oh, you must’ve been accused of arguing in bad faith constantly, and are trying to convince everyone that bad faith arguments are actually epic and cool! This is not the case, that’s not what I’m really arguing. Despite these somewhat clear signals, in my mind, I’m going to respond, because I’m a hypocrite, of course.
I’m not disputing the actual definitions of sealioning or strawmanning, or that these can be potentially useful terms, what I’m doing is I’m saying that people should put more thought into what it is other people are actually doing with their argument, and what it is that they want out of their engagement with other people, rather than just labeling someone else as something, and then going about their day.
That doesn’t really help anyone, it’s just a kind of self-satisfying thing to do. Anyone reading the comment has to trust that the person doing the labeling is doing it correctly, and to responsibly confirm that, they’re going to have to have read the preceding comment and made their own mind up about it. So it’s not helpful to just label something as “misinformation”, and then move on as though you’ve provided some sort of divinely ordained moral service to everyone passing by. I’ve encountered that sort of mentality before, that debates aren’t really done out of like, an intellectual curiosity, or to kind of, talk through your own viewpoints while listening to someone else and they’re input, they’re done for some third party audience. Which I think is, you know, a less helpful way of viewing debates, viewing arguments. Less helpful for a third party, but also less helpful for yourself. If you’re doing it correctly, it shouldn’t matter much whether or not your opposition is arguing with you in bad faith, because you, and everyone else, should still be able to get something out of it.
I’d also say, a bulk of my point was in the latter half of my comment, the part that you didn’t respond to line by line. My point is that, realistically, bad faith arguments can come from anywhere, even from people who insist and fully believe that they’re not arguing in bad faith, i.e. people who are actually arguing in good faith and just doing so really poorly because they’re dumb. This being the case, that the signals are kind of indistinguishable, and it also being the case that bad faith arguments are kind of, doomed to happen, my advice is that people should either ignore them completely, and not let them kind of, occupy as much free rent as they do, in their minds, or they should work to try and get something out of them despite their bad faith. That was the point I intended to make. Arguing in such a manner, is more beneficial to an observing third party, it can potentially solve the problem of separating signals between bad faith arguers, and poor arguers, and it can help you figure out what your real opinion is on something, and make you better at debate.
Edit: To clarify, what I’m arguing against in my post is people who just summarize someone’s argument as “oh, here’s a list of all the logical fallacies you’ve performed”, and then they haven’t done any of the work to say why that’s important, or how those fallacies affected something. I don’t think that’s a helpful function, to anyone, and it leads to a bunch of people who don’t know what any specific fallacy is, other than that it’s something that they can just kind of slap onto arguments they hate.
Strawman is a pretty common fallacy that I’ve noticed this happen to. I’d also like to comment that, you know, sure, am I creating a strawman by arguing against that type of behavior? I don’t fuckin know. I was under the impression that a strawman was when you were arguing against someone, and then you basically put words in their mouth and extrapolate positions in their argument that they never really took. When I posted that comment, I wasn’t arguing against any specific person, I was just commenting about a general thing I’ve experienced. I wasn’t putting words in anyone’s mouth, because I wasn’t responding to anyone.
We’re all on the internet, you can look up the actual definition for “strawman” like I just did.
To paraphrase: strawmanning an argument is not so concretely about “putting words in anyone’s mouth”.
It is the process of debating a newly-created stance/position/idea that is easily disproven and visibly flawed when this new position may or may not be related to anything in the pre-existing debate. You don’t have to be ‘responding to anyone’; in fact, it fits more if you are not arguing something that anyone in the debate has referenced before.
You’re totally off target there. The problem is that we’re mentally unfit to deal with this much info on a daily basis, and we’re social competitors by nature. We default to scoring points on each other. This is what we are, and we’re only noticing it because now the whole world can hear the whole world, all the time.
Reasoned debate isn’t even done perfectly by those actively in forensics/debate clubs. It’s a learned skill that only shows its true value among other adepts. At the same time, knowing who was funnier or more creatively insulting is a universally admired lowest common denominator.
The utopian promise of the internet has turned to ash in the mouths of its greatest proponents as the glaring light of the collected world has laid bare the indelible stamp of our lowly origins. We need smaller spaces, not larger, to shine more softly among friends who are not so exhausted. That’s why I’m here instead of Reddit.
For the sake of form I’d like to have sourced a few of my claims, but time presses. I hope that my somewhat more gloomy views are not too bothersome.
That is a kind of cynical worldview, i will admit. I think with the amount of people responding to my post that kind of, haven’t really gotten what I’m trying to get across, I think I’ve failed with making my point, perhaps.
To put it better, I think it realistically shouldn’t matter. People looking to score points, people looking for easy targets for bad faith pesterings and attacks. The mentality and approach I’ve taken, which I would espouse as advice to others, is that, despite the kind of, stupidity of the internet, if you are going to respond, you should attempt to get something out of it. Even just to be conscious of what you’re getting out of it, would be a step up, too many people take easy owns because they want to reaffirm their own ego, and aren’t even conscious that’s what they’re looking to do. It would even be better, I would think, if people were conscious of that, even if they still did it in the end. I mean that’s probably what we’re all doing to some extent.
In any case, I think, actually trying to present an external argument, right, it’s harder, it’s not as rewarding, most people aren’t going to do it. But I think passersby will still appreciate it when it’s done, I think it’s objectively more useful, than an easier to parse, easy own, and I think potentially, if done correctly, it can more legitimately distinguish between bad faith arguers and people who are just arguing poorly, which can hopefully make people less cynical and more satisfied with their existence online. It’s a sisyphean task, sure, but sisyphus is also jacked, and we all needed the exercise anyways.
This is not really to counteract any of what you’re saying, though, I think we’re kind of, making points on two different levels. You’re arguing a more kind of, societal reality point, which I would totally agree with, I’m arguing an individual goal kind of point, like an actionable advice kind of thing. Hopefully, anyways.
All received as intended, I think. I must have woken up on a poetic side of the bed this morning, I’m glad I didn’t come off too pompous for a serious reply. I don’t sense that we disagree in any way worth quibbling over.
Doing things with intentionality these days is something we get too rarely even from artists, and that’s their entire job. The unexamined life will always have its proponents, eh?
That’s a lot of words to say the internet is full of useless bad faith arguments that are meaningless.
(This is said in jest. I completely agree with your position)
Friend, are you familiar per chance with ancient Greece? Humans have been labeling argumentative behavior since the dawn of language. All those things have Greek or Latin terms. Debate has been considered an art form and seriously studied for millennia. There’s no right way of answering a bad faith argument because it is contextual and made more difficult by the toneless nature of the written word. But in some contexts, even on the internet, you don’t have the option of ignoring it. Sometimes it is your job or your responsibility to answer to it, then you have to be creative and artful, depending on the circumstances and what your goal is.
You know I kind of find it funny that the internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just “people that I don’t like”. It doesn’t really matter whether or not the person is actually “sealioning” anymore, or whether or not the word ever had a definition in the first place, because it’s just something that you’re gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn’t like your line of argument, or the fact that you’ve disagreed with them, or whatever. Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there’s another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there’s another one.
Oops, you’re a troll, you’re a bot, you’re a sealion, you’re strawmanning my position, you’re arguing in bad faith. Signals get crossed over the written medium, anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they’re not. There’s better insurance, better strategies against that, then just kind of labeling it and then moving on.
I think the biggest problem is that labeling the behavior doesn’t really tell you what your response should be. If someone is arguing against you in bad faith, you sort of have the options of, arguing back against them in equal measure, equally bad faith, which I would say is the trap most people fall into. You also have the option of arguing against them as though you don’t recognize them as being in bad faith, while being as courteous and nice as possible, which can go some amount of the way to clarifying that you’re not arguing in bad faith if you’ve been mistaken. Or you can just not respond, which is probably a good idea. Don’t feed the troll, don’t reward them with attention.
But also, to some degree, someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn’t really matter. What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they’re arguing correctly. If they’re doing so incorrectly, then they’re not going to be giving you anything interesting to work off of, and then you should probably just ignore them. That’s my advice. It’s like, they’re just a more advanced form of spam, and the solution to spam is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
No, a lot of terms for people arguing in bad faith have originated on the internet because there’s a lot of different bad faith arguments on the internet.
Confusing sealioning and other bad faith arguing with “people that I don’t like” is a classic and common example of the bad faith trope called a strawman.
It absolutely does. You can’t have a rational discussion with someone arguing in bad faith. Someone who’s wrong or seemingly wrong but arguing in good faith might learn something or cause you to learn something, whereas someone arguing in bad faith is only interested in “winning” and completely closed off to even the most valid counterpoints.
It really really isn’t. That you keep going on about this misconception implies that you’ve often been correctly accused of arguing in bad faith and are trying to fend that off by convincing others that there’s no such thing as bad faith, only subjective dislike. Which is objectively wrong.
The real irony is that you’re trying to terminate the thought that bad faith arguing exists via a bad faith use of a thought-terminating cliché.
Again objectively false and saying a lot more about how YOU argue on the internet than internet discussion in general.
While that’s technically true, it’s much easier to know how to deal with something when you know WHAT you’re dealing with, whether you say it out loud or not.
That’s just ridiculously false. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
…arguing in bad faith IS by definition a way of arguing incorrectly.
Sure, but simple doesn’t always mean easy. Especially when you have poor impulse control and were brought up to consider it incredibly rude and disrespectful to not answer when someone’s trying to explain you something, whether they’re right or wrong.
See so my kneejerk response to this on seeing it, is, oh, someone’s going, literally line by line of my comment, and, line by line, refuting what I say. That’s what I would classically kind of think of as, oh, this is a bad faith argument, especially because you extrapolate from my post and say, oh, you must’ve been accused of arguing in bad faith constantly, and are trying to convince everyone that bad faith arguments are actually epic and cool! This is not the case, that’s not what I’m really arguing. Despite these somewhat clear signals, in my mind, I’m going to respond, because I’m a hypocrite, of course.
I’m not disputing the actual definitions of sealioning or strawmanning, or that these can be potentially useful terms, what I’m doing is I’m saying that people should put more thought into what it is other people are actually doing with their argument, and what it is that they want out of their engagement with other people, rather than just labeling someone else as something, and then going about their day.
That doesn’t really help anyone, it’s just a kind of self-satisfying thing to do. Anyone reading the comment has to trust that the person doing the labeling is doing it correctly, and to responsibly confirm that, they’re going to have to have read the preceding comment and made their own mind up about it. So it’s not helpful to just label something as “misinformation”, and then move on as though you’ve provided some sort of divinely ordained moral service to everyone passing by. I’ve encountered that sort of mentality before, that debates aren’t really done out of like, an intellectual curiosity, or to kind of, talk through your own viewpoints while listening to someone else and they’re input, they’re done for some third party audience. Which I think is, you know, a less helpful way of viewing debates, viewing arguments. Less helpful for a third party, but also less helpful for yourself. If you’re doing it correctly, it shouldn’t matter much whether or not your opposition is arguing with you in bad faith, because you, and everyone else, should still be able to get something out of it.
I’d also say, a bulk of my point was in the latter half of my comment, the part that you didn’t respond to line by line. My point is that, realistically, bad faith arguments can come from anywhere, even from people who insist and fully believe that they’re not arguing in bad faith, i.e. people who are actually arguing in good faith and just doing so really poorly because they’re dumb. This being the case, that the signals are kind of indistinguishable, and it also being the case that bad faith arguments are kind of, doomed to happen, my advice is that people should either ignore them completely, and not let them kind of, occupy as much free rent as they do, in their minds, or they should work to try and get something out of them despite their bad faith. That was the point I intended to make. Arguing in such a manner, is more beneficial to an observing third party, it can potentially solve the problem of separating signals between bad faith arguers, and poor arguers, and it can help you figure out what your real opinion is on something, and make you better at debate.
Edit: To clarify, what I’m arguing against in my post is people who just summarize someone’s argument as “oh, here’s a list of all the logical fallacies you’ve performed”, and then they haven’t done any of the work to say why that’s important, or how those fallacies affected something. I don’t think that’s a helpful function, to anyone, and it leads to a bunch of people who don’t know what any specific fallacy is, other than that it’s something that they can just kind of slap onto arguments they hate.
Strawman is a pretty common fallacy that I’ve noticed this happen to. I’d also like to comment that, you know, sure, am I creating a strawman by arguing against that type of behavior? I don’t fuckin know. I was under the impression that a strawman was when you were arguing against someone, and then you basically put words in their mouth and extrapolate positions in their argument that they never really took. When I posted that comment, I wasn’t arguing against any specific person, I was just commenting about a general thing I’ve experienced. I wasn’t putting words in anyone’s mouth, because I wasn’t responding to anyone.
We’re all on the internet, you can look up the actual definition for “strawman” like I just did.
To paraphrase: strawmanning an argument is not so concretely about “putting words in anyone’s mouth”.
It is the process of debating a newly-created stance/position/idea that is easily disproven and visibly flawed when this new position may or may not be related to anything in the pre-existing debate. You don’t have to be ‘responding to anyone’; in fact, it fits more if you are not arguing something that anyone in the debate has referenced before.
When someone incorrectly labels you as sealioning that’s called wondermarking. So you can smugly ignore the other person, they are just wondermarking.
After the first few sentences I just read ARPARPARPARPARPARPARPARP
anyone else?
Nah, that’s just you.
Welllllll,at least now I know. It was way too much to read tho
“cuntiness”
No thanks, I already ate
There’s always room for pussy!
You’re totally off target there. The problem is that we’re mentally unfit to deal with this much info on a daily basis, and we’re social competitors by nature. We default to scoring points on each other. This is what we are, and we’re only noticing it because now the whole world can hear the whole world, all the time.
Reasoned debate isn’t even done perfectly by those actively in forensics/debate clubs. It’s a learned skill that only shows its true value among other adepts. At the same time, knowing who was funnier or more creatively insulting is a universally admired lowest common denominator.
The utopian promise of the internet has turned to ash in the mouths of its greatest proponents as the glaring light of the collected world has laid bare the indelible stamp of our lowly origins. We need smaller spaces, not larger, to shine more softly among friends who are not so exhausted. That’s why I’m here instead of Reddit.
For the sake of form I’d like to have sourced a few of my claims, but time presses. I hope that my somewhat more gloomy views are not too bothersome.
That is a kind of cynical worldview, i will admit. I think with the amount of people responding to my post that kind of, haven’t really gotten what I’m trying to get across, I think I’ve failed with making my point, perhaps.
To put it better, I think it realistically shouldn’t matter. People looking to score points, people looking for easy targets for bad faith pesterings and attacks. The mentality and approach I’ve taken, which I would espouse as advice to others, is that, despite the kind of, stupidity of the internet, if you are going to respond, you should attempt to get something out of it. Even just to be conscious of what you’re getting out of it, would be a step up, too many people take easy owns because they want to reaffirm their own ego, and aren’t even conscious that’s what they’re looking to do. It would even be better, I would think, if people were conscious of that, even if they still did it in the end. I mean that’s probably what we’re all doing to some extent.
In any case, I think, actually trying to present an external argument, right, it’s harder, it’s not as rewarding, most people aren’t going to do it. But I think passersby will still appreciate it when it’s done, I think it’s objectively more useful, than an easier to parse, easy own, and I think potentially, if done correctly, it can more legitimately distinguish between bad faith arguers and people who are just arguing poorly, which can hopefully make people less cynical and more satisfied with their existence online. It’s a sisyphean task, sure, but sisyphus is also jacked, and we all needed the exercise anyways.
This is not really to counteract any of what you’re saying, though, I think we’re kind of, making points on two different levels. You’re arguing a more kind of, societal reality point, which I would totally agree with, I’m arguing an individual goal kind of point, like an actionable advice kind of thing. Hopefully, anyways.
All received as intended, I think. I must have woken up on a poetic side of the bed this morning, I’m glad I didn’t come off too pompous for a serious reply. I don’t sense that we disagree in any way worth quibbling over.
Doing things with intentionality these days is something we get too rarely even from artists, and that’s their entire job. The unexamined life will always have its proponents, eh?
That’s a lot of words to say the internet is full of useless bad faith arguments that are meaningless. (This is said in jest. I completely agree with your position)
I would argue with you but I need a snappy term to call out someone who makes a long post so that I can win this argument.
Friend, are you familiar per chance with ancient Greece? Humans have been labeling argumentative behavior since the dawn of language. All those things have Greek or Latin terms. Debate has been considered an art form and seriously studied for millennia. There’s no right way of answering a bad faith argument because it is contextual and made more difficult by the toneless nature of the written word. But in some contexts, even on the internet, you don’t have the option of ignoring it. Sometimes it is your job or your responsibility to answer to it, then you have to be creative and artful, depending on the circumstances and what your goal is.
Typical. Check out this echidna you guys.
I think for many it’s knowing when they should block them and not waste their time. having the term and behaviour pointed out helps with that.
More about internet terms and definitions to help catch it when it happens: https://www.dictionary.com/e/online-harassment-disinformation-terms/
And while there are discussions where someone might use these terms to dismiss someone else, Best to move on from that as well.
yup, pretty much
My hot take is that arguing on the internet is just never worth it. As soon as a comment turns into an argument I stop responding.
That’s not a very hot take.
deleted by creator
Found the sea lion.