Or it's basically something they could google up themselves.
It occurred to me that when I was a child, our educational shows ended with maybe a little speech with some additional info, followed by "If you want to know more, check down at your local library!" which was an invitation for you to go explore knowledge for yourself.
For the past 20-30 years now, though, it's been "For more info, go to THIS WEBSITE!"
.... Just wondering if that sort of thing has had an effect.
Intentionally pretending they don't understand what you mean. You use a metaphor and they pretend they have never heard of such a concept. They don't understand common expressions and turns of phrase. Don't even try sarcasm or a joke-y comment, they will have this sudden onset autism.
As a man you can't possibly understand and must shut up.
You are racist because you do not agree 100% with some retarded leftist ideology?
What leftists think sealioning is:
Fentanyl Floyd is not a saint and should not be treated as such
3 in 4 women are not raped
pay gap is a myth
women have been welcomed in games for a long time and there is no data to
back up that gamers are misogynies
linking FBI crime statistics
I think the better example of Actual Sealioning is trying to win an argument by demanding an absurd statement be proven.
I saw one of those regarding the whole "Dream cheated Minecraft" drama the other day. Where a screaming tard demanded to know:
WHERE IS THE EXACT LINE WHERE RNG GOES FROM ACCEPTABLE LUCK TO CHEATING? 1 IN 1000000? 1 IN 1000000000? 1 IN 10? TELL ME RIGHT NOW THE EXACT NUMBER WITH MATHEMATICAL PROOFS OR CONCEDE HE DIDN'T CHEAT
That's the closest thing to sealioning in real life I think you'll see and its such an absurd thing because its a rare type of idiot.
The funny thing is that even though this question is practically impossible (i.e. the paradox of the heap as it's absurd to really say .00000015% is fine but .00000014% isn't), statistics is one of the few times that the experts just say "pick a significance level that makes sense" which are usually 5%, 1%, .1% or .01%. Of course, this should take into account out of total runs and not just the one in question, and it's highly suspect that this isn't really possible anymore because dream went back and destroyed records of his past attempt, I believe.
It was then simple enough to attempt to show them the absurdity of their teaching. Within my small circle I talked to them until my throat ached and my voice grew hoarse. I believed that I could finally convince them of the danger inherent in the Marxist follies. But I only achieved the contrary result. It seemed to me that immediately the disastrous effects of the Marxist Theory and its application in practice became evident, the stronger became their obstinacy.
The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more--the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.
This month the left has changed the dictionary definiton of: -courtpacking
-bigot
-sexual preference
They are literally changing the meaning of words to win arguments
The original sealion comic doesn't even explain why the sealion is wrong, he just comes across as obnoxious. But the kind of obnoxious the people who use the term "sealion" would champion otherwise.
The random guy says something vaguely racist. The sealion calls him out on it. He continues to dodge justifying why he said something bigoted. So the sealion keeps hounding him to backdown or justify it, being entirely polite but extremely hyperbolically forward (following him into his house).
You know, the kind of thing Leftist Twitter does but usually without the veneer of politeness and much more violently.
So even as a word, it fails to make sense because generally you should call out open bigots spreading bigotry on the street (within reason, only actual direct bigotry not "Nazi dogwhistling"). That's not wrong in any sense. But they want to be the ones to own that type of dogpiling.
generally you should call out open bigots spreading bigotry on the street
No you shouldn't. You should stfu and go about you business. Because I guarantee you that some opinion you hold will be considered "bigoted" by the powers that be.
Do you believe that men can't change into women by wishing it? Congrats you are a bigot. Do you believe that single parenting isn't the optimal situation in which to raise children? Congrats you are a bigot. Do you believe obesity is unhealthy? Congrats you are a bigot.
What "calling out" really is is reinforcing your in-group loyalty at the expense of perceived out-group members, particularly those who are vulnerable and non-threatening.
Animal rights activists don't go to biker bars and dump red paint on guys wearing leather. They do it to old women wearing furs. The same thing, because you won't "call out" anyone who has the power to retaliate against you.
Not calling it out is how we got so far that those absurd beliefs you listed got this stupid. Because we simply went about our business because it didn't effect us.
Until it did. Now whites, males, Christians, not trannies, and all sorts of other groups can't even organize because we conceded so much ground by inaction when they were openly being bigoted against those groups.
People are allowed to believe whatever they want. They can mind their business and be bigots to their heart's content. Attempting to indoctrinate and spread publicly is where the line is crossed. And you are only allowed to counter by logic and reason. Them attempting public conversion makes it an open debate to undermine.
Most of my opinions are raging bigotry, I don't care. I am constantly embroiled in public arguments with people who I consider bigoted in manners I disagree with. They can walk away still considered me a bigot, or perhaps I am not wrong and someone will reconsider this screeching woman calling for stronger rape laws is not being logical.
The problem you are seeing is that you only see "calling out" in the specific lens of Leftist cancel culture and no other form.
No talk with them debate ideas and ideology they are there espousing their beliefs so you have as much right to do the same. Conversations aren’t dirty evil things unless your a leftist who thinks only violence is pure.
The other side doesn't believe in dialogue. They engage for two reasons. One is to virtue signal and demonstrate their in group loyalty. Two is to threaten the in-group members that are on the edge that they will be targeted the same as the enemy if they step out of line.
Pretending "reaching out" will have any effect whatsoever is a waste of energy.
The comic doesn't need to explain why the sealion is wrong, it shows why the sealion is wrong. Both the man and woman agree that sealions are unlikeable because they butt in where they aren't wanted to start arguments, to which the sealion responds by butting in where it isn't wanted to start an argument, proving their dislike completely justified.
The comic doesn't need to explain why the sealion is wrong, it shows why the sealion is wrong.
The comic isn't wrong, but its use as an analogy is stupid. Two people at home having a discussion interrupted by a sealion is nothing like people on a public forum shit talking 'sealions' and then taking offense when 'sealions' come to defend themselves.
The thing is, in my experience, it is generally leftists who partake in the practice.
Every “debate” I’ve seen someone have with a leftist consists of constant bad faith questions and asking for a sOuRcE for what is common knowledge.
And then they'll turn around and claim that 600 million people have died of covid and you're just some kind of rasict if you ask for source.
Or it's basically something they could google up themselves.
It occurred to me that when I was a child, our educational shows ended with maybe a little speech with some additional info, followed by "If you want to know more, check down at your local library!" which was an invitation for you to go explore knowledge for yourself.
For the past 20-30 years now, though, it's been "For more info, go to THIS WEBSITE!"
.... Just wondering if that sort of thing has had an effect.
Intentionally pretending they don't understand what you mean. You use a metaphor and they pretend they have never heard of such a concept. They don't understand common expressions and turns of phrase. Don't even try sarcasm or a joke-y comment, they will have this sudden onset autism.
Just projection.
Actual sealioning (the term is so retarded) :
As a man you can't possibly understand and must shut up. You are racist because you do not agree 100% with some retarded leftist ideology?
What leftists think sealioning is:
Fentanyl Floyd is not a saint and should not be treated as such 3 in 4 women are not raped pay gap is a myth women have been welcomed in games for a long time and there is no data to back up that gamers are misogynies linking FBI crime statistics
I think the better example of Actual Sealioning is trying to win an argument by demanding an absurd statement be proven.
I saw one of those regarding the whole "Dream cheated Minecraft" drama the other day. Where a screaming tard demanded to know:
That's the closest thing to sealioning in real life I think you'll see and its such an absurd thing because its a rare type of idiot.
It's not rare. It's the entire rationale behind civic nationalism.
The funny thing is that even though this question is practically impossible (i.e. the paradox of the heap as it's absurd to really say .00000015% is fine but .00000014% isn't), statistics is one of the few times that the experts just say "pick a significance level that makes sense" which are usually 5%, 1%, .1% or .01%. Of course, this should take into account out of total runs and not just the one in question, and it's highly suspect that this isn't really possible anymore because dream went back and destroyed records of his past attempt, I believe.
-Mein Kampf
I fully expect Milkshake Duck to land there before long.
There's prescriptive, there's descriptive, and then there's Merriam-Webster.
https://archive.vn/PDiyC Wokal Distance @wokal_distance 8 Dec 2020
The original sealion comic doesn't even explain why the sealion is wrong, he just comes across as obnoxious. But the kind of obnoxious the people who use the term "sealion" would champion otherwise.
The random guy says something vaguely racist. The sealion calls him out on it. He continues to dodge justifying why he said something bigoted. So the sealion keeps hounding him to backdown or justify it, being entirely polite but extremely hyperbolically forward (following him into his house).
You know, the kind of thing Leftist Twitter does but usually without the veneer of politeness and much more violently.
So even as a word, it fails to make sense because generally you should call out open bigots spreading bigotry on the street (within reason, only actual direct bigotry not "Nazi dogwhistling"). That's not wrong in any sense. But they want to be the ones to own that type of dogpiling.
No you shouldn't. You should stfu and go about you business. Because I guarantee you that some opinion you hold will be considered "bigoted" by the powers that be.
Do you believe that men can't change into women by wishing it? Congrats you are a bigot. Do you believe that single parenting isn't the optimal situation in which to raise children? Congrats you are a bigot. Do you believe obesity is unhealthy? Congrats you are a bigot.
What "calling out" really is is reinforcing your in-group loyalty at the expense of perceived out-group members, particularly those who are vulnerable and non-threatening.
Animal rights activists don't go to biker bars and dump red paint on guys wearing leather. They do it to old women wearing furs. The same thing, because you won't "call out" anyone who has the power to retaliate against you.
Definition of a bigot: 1. a person who constantly and stubbornly holds a particular point of view etc.
By this definition, I am a proud bigot.
Not calling it out is how we got so far that those absurd beliefs you listed got this stupid. Because we simply went about our business because it didn't effect us.
Until it did. Now whites, males, Christians, not trannies, and all sorts of other groups can't even organize because we conceded so much ground by inaction when they were openly being bigoted against those groups.
People are allowed to believe whatever they want. They can mind their business and be bigots to their heart's content. Attempting to indoctrinate and spread publicly is where the line is crossed. And you are only allowed to counter by logic and reason. Them attempting public conversion makes it an open debate to undermine.
Most of my opinions are raging bigotry, I don't care. I am constantly embroiled in public arguments with people who I consider bigoted in manners I disagree with. They can walk away still considered me a bigot, or perhaps I am not wrong and someone will reconsider this screeching woman calling for stronger rape laws is not being logical.
The problem you are seeing is that you only see "calling out" in the specific lens of Leftist cancel culture and no other form.
No talk with them debate ideas and ideology they are there espousing their beliefs so you have as much right to do the same. Conversations aren’t dirty evil things unless your a leftist who thinks only violence is pure.
The other side doesn't believe in dialogue. They engage for two reasons. One is to virtue signal and demonstrate their in group loyalty. Two is to threaten the in-group members that are on the edge that they will be targeted the same as the enemy if they step out of line.
Pretending "reaching out" will have any effect whatsoever is a waste of energy.
The comic doesn't need to explain why the sealion is wrong, it shows why the sealion is wrong. Both the man and woman agree that sealions are unlikeable because they butt in where they aren't wanted to start arguments, to which the sealion responds by butting in where it isn't wanted to start an argument, proving their dislike completely justified.
The comic isn't wrong, but its use as an analogy is stupid. Two people at home having a discussion interrupted by a sealion is nothing like people on a public forum shit talking 'sealions' and then taking offense when 'sealions' come to defend themselves.
Am I the only one who felt that the sea lion was in the right even in the original comic?
I'll stop sealioning when they stop landwhaling!
they're still trying to make this a thing?