https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13l47d9/eli5_what_exactly_is_sealioning/

Wow then, kind of overestimated how many people care about the modlogs. Fair enough.

It’s self-deprecating fourth-wall-breaking commentary on fediverse culture. Have you never been accused of sealioning when questioning someone’s lack of a source?

“In political bounds” meaning it’s in the path of the linear political scale.

Kind of. Suppose you’re reviewing work from a philosopher from a political lens and want to incorporate it somehow into discussion of an ideology. If someone looks at it and asks “is this a left view or a right view”, you have corrupted politik out of bounds.

But then suppose, like you said, someone politicizes the cat in the living room. Naturally you’d ask “what would it take to put my writings in political bounds if I have all these things I don’t actually want to consider issues having a better time than what I am trying to assess? Where do I cross over from the act of politicization to the act of putting things on the political spectrum?”

Reminds me of my favorite joke.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don’t.

Politicization implies it can be graded on the left/right political system, correct? So if anything can be politicized but only certain things can be left/right, doesn’t that render it moot that anything can be politicized in the first place?

To use an analogy, it seems like if you were to say “I know the cat is in the living room and I know where she is in the living room, but I can’t point to her because that cannot be determined”.

After watching the video myself, I found a few takeaways relevant…

1. He is denouncing forms of crowdthink.
2. He denounces the way people on Lemmy tend to grab sources and distribute biased knowledge.
3. Key red flags he gives describe the core fabric of Lemmy’s culture, such as when he says it’s a red flag when we interpret peoples’ intent for each other or try to tell each other how to feel about certain things.
4. The very beginning of the video has him talk about the difficulty of defining a good source over a bad one due to how we cannot be certain of anything and how our ideology might be natural to us only due to our circumstances. People on Lemmy tend to not think in any terms other than “if it’s what I’m accustomed to, it’s right”.
5. He talks about sources in a way that makes all the instances of people on Lemmy complaining about others sealioning look bad.
6. OP is historical on Lemmy and has seen all the things he talks about converge on her in ways that violate absolutely everything he says (one of the key ones even has a community trying to establish sealioning as inherently wrong). It’s buried now, but look up material related to "Leni, “Lenny”, or “Call me Lenny/Leni” (that was their full screen name). This individual who led a witch hunt against Leni (short for Madeline, if you get tired of saying Leni) even got the whole fediverse to violate the “indicting a whole demographic” red flag because this place is far from his way of thinking, not that it isn’t common for them to do this to big businesses in general. I remember getting mixed into it just because I merely asked about her and shared a meme and being accused of being Leni.

I am currently running an experiment about this as an example in progress.

Leni did that? Holy shit.

You dropped something.

This is what she’s referring to.

This is what she’s referring to.

This is what she’s referring to.

Madagascar has always had nothing to it. So good they’re willing to do this.

Given recent events, I’m not surprised.

do you have any specific examples of this phenomenon?

Earlier this year, digital communities actually had to crack down on consequentialism because they were using it to support serial killers. I’m surprised someone in ours hasn’t seen how people view that.

Arguments against utilizing identity are typically argued in personal spaces. You may have heard of stories of family members who convert to a religion so that they can complain they’re being persecuted when someone speaks against them, only for that person to not follow through with it in other ways. My mom has a friend who is Jewish who comes to holiday dinners and takes home a ham, but you can’t even talk about the current wartime situation in you-know-where with this person without them burying you with ultra long responses about how you must be insensitive. My brother who was in prison also mentioned that a lot of the prisoners feign belonging to different minorities because people of those minorities get better prison food (a self-imposed rule on the officers). Before my aunt died, she would say her diabetes meant she should get to choose what restaurant to go to, but then you’d see the inside of her kitchen and see that it’s full of the worst cereals she could possibly be eating if she had diabetes (not an example I’d blame her for though since she died due to waiting in a car in the freezing cold which caused her accuchek to malfunction).

Once in a while, you see this in the media. Someone might say they have cardio issues because it attracts donations, but then you see them in amusement park pictures enjoying things that someone like that shouldn’t be enjoying. A politician might say they’re full-blooded indigenous to get more respect from people, only to take up offensive practices or end up doing something not typical of that group of people (e.g. drink large quantities of alcohol).

It would put all the infighting in some of these communities into perspective.

Oh. Whoops. Was that there before? Sorry about that.

I mean, you’re the one brigading. That’s more fitting of a question for the other person to ask.

It baffles me why Davel thought I was a recurring troll, and then had to unban me just to ban me again so that I appeared at the top of the modlogs. Does he genuinely think I’m any of those users, or is this a game of satisfaction to him as this would imply?