you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tiwaking 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Hello old friend! Im against banning people. However, even a casual scan of Socks post history shows that their posts consist of arguments derived from mainstream sources. A closer investigation shows a continued history of sealioning and bad faith arguments. Of the 34 or so people in this thread, about 4 of them are 100% anti-censorship (no to bans). A few people (very reputable people I might add) do want bans, but everyone would be happy to see these two blocked instead.

...but yes if we followed Saidits rules process then they probably should be banned. As for any of the alternate accounts, they'd be extremely easy to spot because [b]their rigid dogmatic opinions stand out in a sea of free thinkers[/b]

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

sealioning

TIL. Fanfuckingtastic! A perfect term to describe MANY of the trolls on SaidIt.

What to know: Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable. Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims.

The origin of the term.

Thanks for the stats. I'm not sure how accurate they really are, because I fucked up and my OP failed to clearly separate my disdain of their poison pens from their ban-worthy repetitive rule-breaking. (I'm also against banning people with opinions, good and bad.)

[–]Tiwaking 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Just from their posts in the Politics forum you can clearly see that they continually use this tactic: Always asking questions and using mainstream sources for their defence, their unwavering defence of President Dementia, Joe Biden - its naive at best and deliberately insincere and misleading at worse.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Indeed.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're making a false argument that's based on the removal of comments from their contexts. Moreover, sealioning doesn't apply - especially on Saidit - where there are only 20 active users in /s/Politics, and 5 of them want to respond to everything I write, and I respond to them. I've not previously seen your username, and it's apparent that you don't know what you're arguing about.

[–]Tiwaking 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Lie number 1: "I've not previously seen your username" https://saidit.net/s/USPolitics/comments/20aj/who_voted_for_her_she_is_retarded/ Airbus320 2 insightful - 1 fun - 7 months ago u/socks! [–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun - 7 months ago I wonder why this OP left Saidit, or changed the username. There are some on Saidit who'd happily lick his winky.

Lie number 2: "it's apparent that you don't know what you're arguing about" /u/JasonCarswell can you present the mountain of evidence against /u/socks please?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Moreover, sealioning doesn't apply - especially on Saidit

IFIFY:
Moreover, sealioning is abundant on Saidit, especially.

Arguing with socks is pointless. No amount of evidence is enough. No one hangs out where they are not welcome unless they're there with a purpose. He's intentionally pretending to not understand. That's how they are effective at disruption and pissing people off. Don't take the bait, don't bother responding unless you're speaking to everyone else reading it.

After all this cools down, next week we'll start some lists and other community projects that may or may not help.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) I'm supposed to remember a post of yours from 7 months ago? And do you look at the username when you read a post? (Most of us look mainly at the post, not who posted it.) (Irrelevant)

2) You don't