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.
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.
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
When someone incorrectly labels you as sealioning that’s called wondermarking. So you can smugly ignore the other person, they are just wondermarking.
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.
“cuntiness”
No thanks, I already ate
There’s always room for pussy!