I’ve been doing this for some time now. Even if it’s something that I consider important.

I just don’t see the value in participating in a discussion that I have seen countless times already where the same points and arguments happen over and over again. One that I know wilI turn ugly. It’s exhausting and I’ve decided to just opt-out.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What you’re doing isn’t a bad thing. I went through something similar.

    Your mental health is more important than any online discussion could ever be. If that means less food for the trolls and sealions, so be it.

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I know you’re trying to say the opposite, but I agree with the sealion in this regard. The human was being racist, and when the sealion chalkenged them to actually defend their beliefs they proved that they couldn’t, and instead of admitting they didn’t have any logical reason to hate sealions, they made excuses such as them being busy with other things, when they could have ended the discussion quickly by admitting they were wrong for hating sealions - or, if they did have a good reason for hating sealions, saying it. He was dodging the question and putting it on the sealion for being rude.

          • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yeah, I thought about discarding the whole explanation beneath it. But then I remembered that the first time I saw the sea lion comic I was kind of confused about what sealioning was and had similair questions.

            If interpreted wrong, the sealion comic seems like a fight against questions and evidence. I interpreted it like that the first time I saw that comic. Now I know better though 😜.

          • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Sealioning is not about the content of the discussion. It is about a discussionstyle.

            Don’t get the two mixed. If you’re trolling: good job! Have some meaningless internetpoints from me!

            If you genuinly don’t know what the problem with sealioning is, I suggest you read up on it some more:

            “Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target’s patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the “sea lion” may seem innocent, they’re intended maliciously and have harmful consequences. — Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)”

            I can see why only seeing that comic makes you come to questions like you asked (“what if it were black people?”) But these questions are questions about content rather then the form of sealioning. Of course it is not wrong to ask for sources in a debate. Or to ask questions. It is however, harmful to impose bad-faith, or even ignore boundaries that are given by the other party (hence the sealion being in bed with its debater in the comic, which is entirely inappropriate of the sealion.)

            Or another definition:

            *“Internet trolls sometimes engage in what is called ‘sealioning’. They demand that you keep arguing with them for as long they want you to, even long after you realize that further discussion is pointless. If you announce that you want to stop, they accuse you of being closed-minded or opposed to reason. The practice is obnoxious. Reason should not be silenced, but it needs to take a vacation sometimes. — Walter Sinnot-Armstront, Think Again: How to Reason and Argue (June 2018).” *