OBJECTION!

This sketch was about Facebook but it’s also relevant to Twitter

The problem I’ve always had with the term is that you can’t really define a term by pointing to a comic and going like, “It’s like when someone does this sort of thing.” Like there’s a bunch of things the sea lion is doing, one is:

pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence

Like if you get a grudge against a user and constantly hound them in every thread about a topic they don’t want to discuss, that’s pretty rude (and if you do this offline like in the comic, it’s straight-up harassment). That’s bad regardless of what form it takes. On the other hand, if it’s just a regular conversation and not following from thread to thread, you have every right to expect people to provide evidence for their claims. Another is:

maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter

“Feigning ignorance of the subject matter,” is also part of the Socratic Method, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s inherently bad to be like, “What specifically does this term mean, and why do you think this specific case meets the criteria?” If you believe something, you ought to be able to state things in clear terms, and that’s an important part of a healthy debate, it helps the other side to identify the point of disagreement where they break with your line of reasoning. Otherwise, how do you even go about having a productive conversation with someone you disagree with at all?

In my opinion, these sorts of internet neologisms are dangerous even if they are addressing a legitimate thing, because once it’s out there, you can’t control who’s going to use it. For example, “mansplaining” was intended to refer to a specific type of thing where a man assumes he’s an expert on a subject and explains in a paternalistic way, while often being ignorant of the subject matter, like random guys on Twitter trying to lecture a female astronaut about how space works. But there are also people who use it/interpret it to mean, “Whenever a man explains something” - even if he is actually qualified to speak on the subject, which provokes a backlash (and obviously the problem is made worse by people trying to exacerbate the backlash, including through sockpuppets).

The ambiguity of the term “sealioning” allows it to be used to shut down good faith questions and discussion, while leaving the accused without a lot of options to defend themself. “What do you mean by ‘sealioning?’ What specifically did I do or say that meets that definition, and why should that be grounds to dismiss what I’m saying, or to conclude I’m acting in bad faith?” is generally going to be met with, “That’s more sealioning.” If critically examining the concept of sealioining is sealioning, then I’m just inclined to dismiss the term entirely.

It’s sad because for most people school is about the only time anybody cares enough about your thoughts to actually read an essay and respond to it intelligently.

I specifically disabled my watch history to get this. If I want to watch something, I’ll go to my subscriptions. Why would I want to interact with YouTube’s algorithm?

It does not. Where?

Tbf, the article should probably mention the fact that machine learning programs designed to play chess blow everything else out of the water.

Nothing? Who said anything about doing anything to them?

By the way, while I’ve got you here, did you know that a mod of c/Germany (as well as most of feddit judging by the upvote ratios) thinks you’re a rabid antisemite who wants to kill all Jews, and who thinks people should go to Gaza to join Hamas, because they misread some of your comments defending their policy? I was wondering if you’d do me a favor and explain to them that you’re on their side, I doubt that you’d want that sort of libel going around.

Feddit.org now bans

• The sentence “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

• Comparing Israel to the Nazis

• Calls to end Zionism

• Calling for the dissolution of Israel

I just quoted what you said. Your real position is crystal clear, you’re a Zionist who thinks criticism of Israel should warrant a ban and also be illegal, because you view anti-zionism as a “dogwhistle” for anti-semitism. You are not, however, “happy to stand by it,” because you’re hiding behind all these excuses about “complying with the law.” The problem is you slipped up and gave the game away with your “dogwhistle” line.

It’s so funny how you types are constantly hiding behind the law and saying, “I didn’t make the law, I don’t agree with it, but they have to do this to avoid legal liability, hands are tied” and then five seconds later you say stuff like, “criticism of Israel is a dogwhistle for antisemitism.”

You’re a coward, refusing to admit your real positions because you know you can’t defend them.

Why would they have to “go” anywhere?

Elad Barashi, who has worked in the Israeli entertainment industry for several years, sparked outrage after posting on X: “Good morning, let there be a Shoa (Holocaust) in Gaza.”

In another post, he wrote, “I can’t understand the people here in the State of Israel who don’t want to fill Gaza with gas showers… or train cars… and finish this story! Let there be a Holocaust in Gaza.”

They have demonstrated that they are not “leftists” by defending the cruelties of Israel. There is no “infighting” here.

“Bans all criticism of Israel” is not the title. The title is that they are banning criticism of Israel, which is true. It’s also true that if someone bans oranges, then they are “banning fruits,” it would only be untrue if they said, “banning all fruits.”

The title does leave it ambiguous in a way that people might think it extends to all criticism, but that’s not actually what it says.

The best way to prevent another Holocaust is to make it illegal for anyone to ever warn that anything happening is similar to the Holocaust or to the Nazis and should be stopped before it goes further. Brilliant. Genius.

Equal rights for all, but with Jewish people being more equal than everyone else.

More personal attacks, because it’s all you’ve got. Funny how I’m the one criticizing civility fetishism but I’ve been considerably more civil this conversation than you have. Maybe you should try practicing what you preach.

Also funny that you think you understand Marx, who famously called for, “Ruthless criticism of everything that exists” as if Karl Marx would be clutching pearls over me calling out Jonathan Haidt.

What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!).

Absent your attempts to make it insulting and pathological, that’s called passionately opposing injustice. Being dispassionate is not inherently more “sane” or “reasonable,” having emotions is human and some things should provoke emotional reactions.

But of course, in reality, my response was quite calm and well reasoned, presenting plenty of evidence to support my points. You’re the one who can’t keep pace with that and have to resort to these petty insults in an attempt to discredit me, because you’re incapable of a logical response.

Are you saying that in an attempt to insult/discredit me in some way? Yes, I’m neurodivergent, and proud of it. I’m also correct on the points I made (save for mixing up Haidt and Chait, as I owned up to).

When you can’t refute any of the other person’s points, just call them crazy 🙄

Seems like you’re contributing to hostile online discourse with all these insults you keep hurling at me. I’m just trying to have a conversation.