Computers are an objective subject on which there can be little interpretation. There's nuance when it comes to the few subjective areas of computers (aesthetics of UI, etc) but mostly, it's concrete stuff.
Feminism is in serious flux and sociology is at best a "feely" science. The pretense that there are many objective milestones in this area is condescending and very, very often used as a tactic to stifle dissenting viewpoints. You may feel set upon by idiots, but if you're not communicating and justifying your position, you can't complain when your view isn't popular.
So no, it's not your JOB to debate, but it's also pretty childish to try to shame people who voice a differing opinion when you're throwing yours around with authority.
You are correct Scott in that when a severe knowledge gap exists debate is impossible or at least a waste of time. However, there are exceptions.
For a technical question you need to be on the same level. Someone asking you why you think SATA is better than IDE is a waste of everyone's time. Someone asking why you have a preference between Radeon and Nvidia can be both technical and opinion. Asking why somone prefers HP over Dell is also more of an opinion question than a knowledge question.
Scott, you are also making the false assumption that everyone involved is an expert except the sea lion. The experts tend to ignore the person and it is the flunkies and hangers on that push for removal of the dissenting opinion.
And I'm talking about earnest attempts at discussion, not a bunch of jerkoffs throwing around some 3 syllable words and then doing the internet mic drop thing. I can see where people are pretty tired of ALL discussion after enough of that crap.
The wondermark comic paints both parties as being in the wrong
I disagree.
The complainer has already concluded analysis/discussion, and determined that Sea Lions (gamergaters) are annoying.
The Sea Lion appears and beings doing nothing but asking inane questions in the exact manner that any clever troll would. There's a certain facetious politeness that is so positively typical of GG-type nonsense that it can be dismissed unilaterally and out of hand.
There is literally nothing to discuss worth discussing that has been raised by these people.
I'm not even talking about GG but the overuse of this particular term to silence people who are trying to politely ask for clarification when the original statement is ambiguous. It sounds like there was already an easy way to silence someone who was being rude and now a new meme/trope had to be created to silence/mock/shame people for being polite!
In the top half of the comic the speaker starts out saying something offensive and their associate even knows it is offensive. When called out on the offensive statement the speaker ignores the polite request asking why the speaker holds such an offensive belief. After that it turns to harassment. Which, when you really think about it, describes most of American political journalism during campaign season. Politician says something stupid and/or offensive and they are hounded forever over it.
Take GG out of it. When Sarah Palin spouts some crazy shit and reporters constantly ask for clarification are they sealioning?
I'm not even talking about GG but the overuse of this particular term to silence people who are trying to politely ask for clarification when the original statement is ambiguous.
...
Take GG out of it. When Sarah Palin spouts some crazy shit and reporters constantly ask for clarification are they sealioning?
Reporters ask actual questions. Reporters are expected to ask prominent strangers questions. Reporters ask many prominent stranger questions about a variety of topics. Reporters aren't copy/pasting their questions from 8chan "command centers" Reporters aren't asking questions anonymously through newly creating single-issue twitter accounts. Reporters aren't asking questions solely to harass. Reporters aren't asking questions that are already answered by research or journalism. Reporters actually care about the answer to the question. etc...
Why are you still referencing gamergate? I am not even talking about gamergate. This term is appearing in non-gamergate areas and is being used to silence legitimate discussion.
Why are you still referencing gamergate? I am not even talking about gamergate. This term is appearing in non-gamergate areas and is being used to silence legitimate discussion.
The only other place I see it actually coming up is in similarly ignorant "debates" about feminism, which is the same place/reason it happens in gamergate.
It happens on /r/feminism an awful lot. You may argue that reddit is a cesspool, and many places on reddit ARE, but there's also a fair amount of earnest discussion. Usually this continues until one of 17 mods takes an issue with someone "winning" an argument against their opinions and bans people while using the standard lingo "not our job to 'educate' you", etc. That's not OK. Destroying earnest mainstream discussion because you're in a position to is propaganda.
There needs to be a reliable happy medium between /r/ShitRedditSays and /b/ on 4chan. You obviously can't have ZERO moderation, but if there's no safe, fair space to discuss these issues then they'll never move forward. What we have now are a bunch of septic tanks and a bunch of echo chambers.
In the top half of the comic the speaker starts out saying something offensive and their associate even knows it is offensive. When called out on the offensive statement the speaker ignores the polite request asking why the speaker holds such an offensive belief.
Nope, you've totally missed the point of that comic.
First of all, the sea lion interjected into a private conversation, which is not really "polite". More importantly, though, it's clear that the associate's problem is not that they're being offensive out loud, but rather that they are at risk of being sealioned. Hence their comment at the end---"I told you, dude. Sea Lions."
Yeah, agree with lackofcheese here. Although the comic is obviously depicting a very specific scenario. Which is fine, but shouldn't be applied too generally. It sounds like Steve is saying it's applied to scenarios quite different than depicted, or he said that before. I don't agree that the Sea Lion isn't being a jerk as depicted in the comic.
If that is what sealioning is meant to refer to then how can it be used at all unless the sea lion is intruding on a private conversation? A forum, by its very nature is public. As are Facebook and twitter.
Not every forum has to have rules conducive to open debate. If somebody wants to set up an echo chamber, then that's their business. It's pretty unfortunate and credibility-destroying, but it's certainly their right.
Twitter is something else. I don't see any productive sense in flooding somebody with twitter replies demanding response. Facebook.. have at it. They can always block you.
I request clarification when someone uses a broad term when a narrow term is more appropriate. If the discussion was about racism and someone used a blanket term like "southerners" I would request clarification because the term refers to everyone living in the south. If they just said "rednecks" or "southern racists" I would not need clarification to understand their views. If they then called me out as a sea lion I would know even more about their views.
I'm not looking to debate their views, I just want to understand what their view is before I make a judgment call on how to proceed.
But in a privately administrated forum, nobody has to care about your input or how you proceed.
The biggest problem is when all of these qualifiers are dropped and people are basically arguing for the right to spread hate out IRL or yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.
But what a bunch of dittoheads do in their echo chamber, you've got no say in.
On further reflection I now understand my confusion. I have been called a sea lion when I am in fact just a river otter asking someone why they don't like sea lions.
Imagine a person who goes into a geologist community. They know nothing about geology. They start asking questions/debating. The geologists do not want to take the time to debate with or educate them. Even if the intent of their questioning is completely sincere, it's still annoying and is still sea lioning. Intent doesn't matter. When in the presence of people who know way more about a subject, they should read and not speak.
Upon being blocked, this person may misinterpret that community as being an echo chamber that shuts out dissenting opinions. They blocked me because I disagreed with them! Such an outrage.
The reality is that the only echo in that community is truth. It's a community that exists for people who are qualified to debate. This person is not deserving of being debated because they do not have the prerequisite knowledge required to contribute meaningfully. They will simply interfere with those who are. Because they are ignorant they think they are being shut out because they are dissenting, but the reality is they are shut out because they are ignorant.
Feminism is in serious flux and sociology is at best a "feely" science. The pretense that there are many objective milestones in this area is condescending and very, very often used as a tactic to stifle dissenting viewpoints. You may feel set upon by idiots, but if you're not communicating and justifying your position, you can't complain when your view isn't popular.
While it is true that some sciences are "harder" than others, it still doesn't mean that someone who hasn't studied can contribute meaningfully. Just because something isn't a set-in-stone hard mathematical fact doesn't mean that any shmo off the street who has an opinion is deserving of being heard.
As I said before, degrees in women's studies are offered by most major universities. There is simply that much material. The issue is really that complex. Even if there are issues which are debateable, someone who hasn't studied these matters extensively still isn't qualified to speak to them, no matter how "feely" they are.
TL;DR: If you see a community that's an echo chamber, it may very well be. But it's more likely that you're just an ignorant sea lion. Stop bothering people just because they know more about something than you do.
TL;DR - when anyone who disagrees with you is deemed too ignorant to debate with, and that becomes the party line, your movement will naturally shed credibility like a meteorite crashing to earth sheds mass.
I agree with you, but I think we're discussing from two different lanes of the same highway.
I agree that people not in any way qualified to comment should shut up and crack a book.
I also believe that people are routinely, unjustly thrown into that category as a lazy, knee jerk, non-rebuttal.
And for the record, I don't routinely go crashing feminist parties and demanding justifications. I have responded to screeds on more open forums, though, and been tossed in the "fuck you, you're dumb" bin. I don't have a degree in Sociology but I've had formal education in it and I certainly understand an awful lot of the finer points.
Last year I nearly got Sarah's homeroom teacher fired for a bunch of casual slurs about homosexuality in front of her class. He's no longer a homeroom teacher and he's not allowed to coach Sarah's gym class anymore. I could have pursued it even further but wrote him off as a dumb hick.
That's a tangent, but what I'm trying to convey is that I'm not totally insensitive and stupid. :P
Yes. There are some groups of people who are just jerky echo chambers that will kick you out and say that you are too ignorant to debate. There are also groups who are truly educated and kick you out telling you the same exact thing. If you are in the position of ignorance, it is impossible to tell them apart. They are effectively the same, and you have no way to distinguish which is which.
Since it's impossible to tell, they are effectively the same. There is a solution. Educate yourself fully. Then you will know for sure which groups are jerks and which are simply experts. Since you are educated, the experts will accept you. Ignorance causes suffering. Simply eliminate it, and the problems will go away.
If the "experts" accepted the educated, I wouldn't be in this thread. I'm sure you'll write it off as me overestimating my knowledge, and hey, fair enough, I'm not gonna sway you here. The issue I have, though, is that college degreed people are just about as apt to dismiss valid counterpoints as anybody else. When it comes to hot button issues, education doesn't always override religious adherence to firmly held opinion.
There's no one single truth that everybody reaches if only they have sufficient training.
If the "experts" accepted the educated, I wouldn't be in this thread. I'm sure you'll write it off as me overestimating my knowledge, and hey, fair enough, I'm not gonna sway you here. The issue I have, though, is that college degreed people are just about as apt to dismiss valid counterpoints as anybody else. When it comes to hot button issues, education doesn't always override religious adherence to firmly held opinion.
There's no one single truth that everybody reaches if only they have sufficient training.
No, there isn't. But if you have sufficient knowledge, you can lay the hammer down on those who dismiss valid counterpoints. You can rebut them so ferociously that they have no recourse but to STFU.
If that community is truly an echo chamber, then there's no reason for an educated person to waste any time or energy on it. Just ignore it and spend your time on something productive.
Comments
Feminism is in serious flux and sociology is at best a "feely" science. The pretense that there are many objective milestones in this area is condescending and very, very often used as a tactic to stifle dissenting viewpoints. You may feel set upon by idiots, but if you're not communicating and justifying your position, you can't complain when your view isn't popular.
So no, it's not your JOB to debate, but it's also pretty childish to try to shame people who voice a differing opinion when you're throwing yours around with authority.
For a technical question you need to be on the same level. Someone asking you why you think SATA is better than IDE is a waste of everyone's time. Someone asking why you have a preference between Radeon and Nvidia can be both technical and opinion. Asking why somone prefers HP over Dell is also more of an opinion question than a knowledge question.
Scott, you are also making the false assumption that everyone involved is an expert except the sea lion. The experts tend to ignore the person and it is the flunkies and hangers on that push for removal of the dissenting opinion.
The complainer has already concluded analysis/discussion, and determined that Sea Lions (gamergaters) are annoying.
The Sea Lion appears and beings doing nothing but asking inane questions in the exact manner that any clever troll would. There's a certain facetious politeness that is so positively typical of GG-type nonsense that it can be dismissed unilaterally and out of hand.
There is literally nothing to discuss worth discussing that has been raised by these people.
In the top half of the comic the speaker starts out saying something offensive and their associate even knows it is offensive. When called out on the offensive statement the speaker ignores the polite request asking why the speaker holds such an offensive belief. After that it turns to harassment. Which, when you really think about it, describes most of American political journalism during campaign season. Politician says something stupid and/or offensive and they are hounded forever over it.
Take GG out of it. When Sarah Palin spouts some crazy shit and reporters constantly ask for clarification are they sealioning?
Reporters are expected to ask prominent strangers questions.
Reporters ask many prominent stranger questions about a variety of topics.
Reporters aren't copy/pasting their questions from 8chan "command centers"
Reporters aren't asking questions anonymously through newly creating single-issue twitter accounts.
Reporters aren't asking questions solely to harass.
Reporters aren't asking questions that are already answered by research or journalism.
Reporters actually care about the answer to the question.
etc...
First of all, the sea lion interjected into a private conversation, which is not really "polite". More importantly, though, it's clear that the associate's problem is not that they're being offensive out loud, but rather that they are at risk of being sealioned. Hence their comment at the end---"I told you, dude. Sea Lions."
Twitter is something else. I don't see any productive sense in flooding somebody with twitter replies demanding response. Facebook.. have at it. They can always block you.
I'm not looking to debate their views, I just want to understand what their view is before I make a judgment call on how to proceed.
The biggest problem is when all of these qualifiers are dropped and people are basically arguing for the right to spread hate out IRL or yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.
But what a bunch of dittoheads do in their echo chamber, you've got no say in.
Upon being blocked, this person may misinterpret that community as being an echo chamber that shuts out dissenting opinions. They blocked me because I disagreed with them! Such an outrage.
The reality is that the only echo in that community is truth. It's a community that exists for people who are qualified to debate. This person is not deserving of being debated because they do not have the prerequisite knowledge required to contribute meaningfully. They will simply interfere with those who are. Because they are ignorant they think they are being shut out because they are dissenting, but the reality is they are shut out because they are ignorant. While it is true that some sciences are "harder" than others, it still doesn't mean that someone who hasn't studied can contribute meaningfully. Just because something isn't a set-in-stone hard mathematical fact doesn't mean that any shmo off the street who has an opinion is deserving of being heard.
As I said before, degrees in women's studies are offered by most major universities. There is simply that much material. The issue is really that complex. Even if there are issues which are debateable, someone who hasn't studied these matters extensively still isn't qualified to speak to them, no matter how "feely" they are.
TL;DR: If you see a community that's an echo chamber, it may very well be. But it's more likely that you're just an ignorant sea lion. Stop bothering people just because they know more about something than you do.
I agree with you, but I think we're discussing from two different lanes of the same highway.
I agree that people not in any way qualified to comment should shut up and crack a book.
I also believe that people are routinely, unjustly thrown into that category as a lazy, knee jerk, non-rebuttal.
Last year I nearly got Sarah's homeroom teacher fired for a bunch of casual slurs about homosexuality in front of her class. He's no longer a homeroom teacher and he's not allowed to coach Sarah's gym class anymore. I could have pursued it even further but wrote him off as a dumb hick.
That's a tangent, but what I'm trying to convey is that I'm not totally insensitive and stupid. :P
Since it's impossible to tell, they are effectively the same. There is a solution. Educate yourself fully. Then you will know for sure which groups are jerks and which are simply experts. Since you are educated, the experts will accept you. Ignorance causes suffering. Simply eliminate it, and the problems will go away.
There's no one single truth that everybody reaches if only they have sufficient training.
The problem, as in US politics, will always be the biddable masses who really just need/want a reason to get angry about something/anything.