Maybe its me but I had to look at the term sealioning and for context for other people

According to merriam-webster, sealioning/sealions are:

> 'Sealioning' is a form of trolling meant to exhaust the other debate participant with no intention of real discourse.

> Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

▲

squigz 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The issue: how do you know when someone is doing this vs genuinely trying to learn?

▲

7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

sbarre 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Experience

▲

walterbell 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

History

▲

Forgeties79 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A person trying to learn doesn’t constantly disagree/contradict you and never express that their understanding has improved. A person sealioning always finds a reason to erode whatever you say with every response. At some point they need to nod or at least agree with something except in the most extreme cases.

It also doesn’t help their case that they somehow have a such a starkly contradictory opinion on something they ostensibly don’t know anything/are legitimately asking questions about. They should ask a question or two and then just listen.

It’s just one of those things that falls under “I know it when I see it.”

▲

Imustaskforhelp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

One of the best things I read which genuinely has impact (I think) on me is the book, How to win friends and influence people.

It fundamentally changed how I viewed debates etc. from a young age so I never really sea-lioned that much hopefully.

But if I had to summarize the most useful and on topic quote from the book its that.

"I may be wrong, I usually am"

Lines like this give me a humble nature to fall back on. Even socrates said that the only thing I know is that I know nothing so if he doesn't know nothing, then chances are I can be wrong about things I know too.

Knowing that you can be wrong gives an understanding that both of you are just discussing and not debating and as such the spirit becomes cooperative and not competitive.

Although in all fairness, I should probably try to be a more keen listener but its something that I am working on too, any opinions on how to be a better listener too perhaps?

	▲	Forgeties79 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I definitely try to work on my listening every day, though I would say at best it’s been a mixed bag ha. Just something I’m always having to work on. I like the “does it need to be said by me right now?” test a lot when I can actually remember to apply it in the moment. I forgot where I learned it but somebody basically put it like this: Before you say anything, ask yourself 3 questions 1. Does it need to be said? 2. Does it need to be said by me? 3. Does it need to be said by me right now? You work your way down the list one at a time and if the answer is still yes by the time you hit 3, then go ahead.

▲

qcnguy 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course, that's exactly what someone who keeps losing debates would say about their opponents.

	▲	notahacker 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Of course, it's also the opinion of someone who had expressed no interest in debate in the first place when confronted by hordes of midwits "debating" them with exaggerated civility... starting off by asking if they had a source for their claim that the pope was a Catholic and if they did have a source for the claim that the Pope was a Catholic, clearly appealing to the authority of the Vatican on the matter was simply the Argumentum ad Verecundiam logical fallacy and they've been nothing but civil in demanding a point by point refutation of a three hour YouTube video in which a raving lunatic insists that the Pope is not a Catholic, and generally "winning debates" by having more time and willingness to indulge stupidity than people who weren't even particularly interested in being opponents... (I make no comment on the claims about Rob Pike, but look forward to people arguing I have the wrong opinion on him regardless ;)