Liberal Absolutism: What do they have against sea lions?

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The latest new word "sealion" being used ad nauseum. It is an intransitive verb meaning "to question or to ask for evidence". It is used by someone with a political narrative to disparage someone who is questioning it.

This joins a long list of similar phrases that are used to shut down discussion.

- Sealioning. To question a narrative.
- Mansplaining. To hold an opinion against a liberal narrative as a man.
- Whataboutism. To point out counterexamples to a liberal narrative.
- Both-Sidesism. To point out where liberals act in an illogical or extreme way.

These ideas are all similar in their purpose. They imply a single "correct" perspective. And they are disparaging any questioning of the one true narrative or any expression of a different perspective.

If someone is complaining about "conservative political violence", the fact that there is also liberal political valid is both valid and relevant. The implied narrative that only conservatives are violence is false; it should be challenged.

Instead of thoughtful discussion, we get charges of "whataboutism" and "bothsidesism" and (if a man is involved) "mansplaining". These are dodges, and the end result is that only one point of view can ever be discussed.

In the US, liberalism has become about absolutism. There are questions that should not be asked and facts that can not be considered. That is why these phrases turn into fads.

I wish they would leave the sea lions in peace.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 664 • Replies: 29
Topic Closed

@maxdancona,

You said;

- Mansplaining. To hold an opinion against a liberal narrative as a man.

How I use the word:

Definition of mansplain
transitive + intransitive
of a man

: to explain something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic

Edit: BTW, anyone can mansplain and anyone can be mansplained to. It's not reserved for just men. It's the attempt to explain something to someone on the assumption they don't know.

It's arrogant and offensive when done in a condescending tone.

A friend of mine (A) told another friend (B) that C.S. Lewis wrote the Narnia series. B was offended that A thought she hadn't read them.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Your definition of mansplaining is functionally the same is mine.

Has a man every questioned your political narrative in way that you didn't feel was condescending?

Sorry. I don't think there is an argument here. We are both saying basically the same thing.

0 Replies

The point being that the practical use of the word "mansplain" is to shut down discussion. Once someone throws out this term... any dialog ends. The person who has used the term has signaled that she or she has hurt feelings and will no longer listen to any other perspective.

I don't see why it matters if someone is condescending to me. I can ignore the fact that I already know what they are explaining to me, it simply doesn't matter. If they are talking I may try to cut them off... but if they are writing I simply skip over the part I already know and try to get to the point that I find interesting.

If mansplaining is really a gender neutral term, then why do I care if you are mansplaining? There is no need for me to get offended, and there is certainly no reason that I shouldn't respond to the valid points you are making.

In my practical experience, the term "mansplaining" is used to shut down discussion when someone is questioning a politically correct narrative.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

- Sealioning. To question a narrative.
- Mansplaining. To hold an opinion against a liberal narrative as a man.
- Whataboutism. To point out counterexamples to a liberal narrative.
- Both-Sidesism. To point out where liberals act in an illogical or extreme way.

There is so much wrong here. You literally do not know what you are talking about and have fashioned personal "definitions" which simply fit your "ideological narrative©".

Quote:

These are dodges, and the end result is that only one point of view can ever be discussed.

No, they are just terms that help people to identify certain rhetorical techniques which crop up again and again in online discussions. They are non-ideological, i.e. you can find them being employed (or criticized) by people of all political persuasions.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

This is one of those right and wrong things at least in my opinion. These words were initially used to define a specific action...I will use mansplaining as I think Mame has defined and explained it well and yes I have experienced it.

Originally it came about because yes there are many men that will talk condescendingly to women and over explain something as if they were a child..real situations and getting fed up with being treated that way this word was a perfect fit for the situation.

but then what happens is people will use it as an "out". Just as you are describing. So sadly it loses its true meaning and strength. I seen this as well ... The word becomes meaningless because many will then use this word to Stop the conversation and belittle the other person where they will need to stop or otherwise be labeled as a mansplainer.

I've had these same thoughts about being labeled a Karen. If I have a legitimate complaint, I know hesitate to voice this because of being labeled a karen. I think these sorts of words and labels tend to hold back real conversations more than help describe a bad situation.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

They are non-ideological, i.e. you can find them being employed (or criticized) by people of all political persuasions.

Hmmmm.... Are you really making a 'both sides" argument.

I love it!

0 Replies

@hightor,

No Hightor.

These terms all geared toward making a discussion one sided. You are not just pushing your own perspective you are excluding all other points of view.

You yourself used a both sides argument when you claimed that "all sides" use these terms. That doesn't make your point invalid. Of course your both sides argument is relevant, if you are correct than my implication that this is primarily a politically liberal behavior is questionable.

I can argue with you (I think you are factually wrong). But I am not going to attack you for a rhetorical device.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Thank you Linkat.

I think there are two sides to that. There is the social/emotional side. Particularly in a place where I feel vulnerable, being talked down to is no fun.

There is also the intellectual side. When someone talks down to me about something I know well, I have no trouble either stopping them, or nodding off until they get to something that interests me; no harm done.

Online, mansplaining usually targets a political position. The idea is that a man shouldn't express any opinion on topics like abortion.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Quote:

If I have a legitimate complaint, I know hesitate to voice this because of being labeled a karen. I think these sorts of words and labels tend to hold back real conversations more than help describe a bad situation.

As "mansplaining" implies an element of condescension, being labeled a "Karen" implies a sense of self-righteousness and entitlement. These terms can be useful to someone on either side. Take the term "pedant", for example. If I hear someone misuse a term I may wish to correct them without coming across as a "pedant" so I'll take care frame my observation in a helpful, rather than a critical manner. Likewise, it's good for men to be aware of "mansplaining" and for middle-aged women to know what "Karens" are so that we can all become a little more aware of how we come across to others. Such awareness actually helps to improve real conversation.

And, of course, people will misuse the terms, as maxdancona has done, in order to appear as if they have the upper hand in an argument. If you encounter this attempt at manipulation and recognize it for what it is, you needn't let it bother you. Just call out the misapplication for what it is.

2 Replies

Quote:

Hmmmm.... Are you really making a 'both sides" argument.

No, but it's telling that you are attempting to call it that.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Hmmmm.... Are you really making a 'both sides" argument.

No, but it's telling that you are attempting to call it that.

Exactly! And that is my point.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

These terms all geared toward making a discussion one sided.

No, they're not, and I think I explained why in my response to Linkat.

1 Reply

@hightor,

These terms are meaningless to a debate... particularly online.

1) If someone is demanding answers to questions, I simply answer the questions one by one. Hightor, I think you have complained about me "not answering your questions". When this happens I don't accuse you of "sealioning", I simply go back and answer the questions (or ignore them if I don't care).

2) If someone is talking down to me or condescending, I simply ignore it. Online this means either skipping over the words... or (if I choose) pointing out any errors.

3) In a "both sides" argument... if the other side is factual, I will simply move on. Facts on both sides of an issue count and a fact is true no matter which side says it. I might say it is irrelevant (if I believe it is irrelevant) or I can ignore it.

The problem is when these terms are used to exclude other perspectives. The label "bothsidesism" is used to exclude inconvenient facts from a discussion. And that is a bad thing for intelligent discussion but a good thing for maintaining a narrow one-side view.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Hightor, I think you have complained about me "not answering your questions". When this happens I don't accuse you of "sealioning"...

Good. Because that's not what sealioning is.

Quote:

Facts on both sides of an issue count and a fact is true no matter which side says it.

The abuse of a "both sides" argument occurs when someone misleadingly points out activities done by "both sides" as if they were morally equivalent. For instance, "I support civil rights. I'm just as opposed to BLM as I am to the KKK."

2 Replies

@hightor,

The example you give relating the moral equivalence of the KKK and BLM is an opinion not a fact. Moral equivalence is subjective.

In this case it is ridiculous. Comparing the KKK to BLM is ridiculous. It is not a sane argument (and I don't need a term to tell me this). I would either ignore it (and probably forcibly so) or I would simply line up the facts.

However, I will defend the point that BLM violence can be compared to January 6th Trump violence in at least one aspect. They are both examples of political extremism by the political right and the political left respectively.

If someone is making the point that political violence comes from the far right... pointing out the counter-example is completely relevant.

1 Reply

@hightor,

One of the problems with absolutism is a confusion between opinion and fact.

A fact is something that is objective, and that you can test (meaning that there is a way to disprove it).

An opinion can be based on facts. That doesn't make it a fact. A narrative is a set of opinions.

Each political side gathers up all of the facts to support its narrative and ignores the facts that question it. When you are criticizing the "rhetorical devices" being used by people with other perspectives, you are giving yourself an excuse to ignore the facts that support their narrative.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The example you give relating the moral equivalence of the KKK and BLM is an opinion not a fact.

That doesn't mean that it's not an example of the "both sides" ploy in use.

Quote:

If someone is making the point that political violence comes from the far right... pointing out the counter-example is completely relevant.

Correct. But I think it's a stretch to identify looting which occurs in an urban riot as "BLM violence". Apolitical people who aren't even affiliated with BLM taking advantage of social disorder to help themselves to merchandise seems qualitatively different from knowingly organizing armed networks of ideologically like-minded people to intimidate the political opposition and undermine government policies.

I have no difficulty denouncing political violence from whatever quarter it originates. Nor do I have a problem with denouncing burglary and arson done by rioters. I do have a problem with the need to "balance" every despicable act by one side with an example of a despicable act done by the other side. Too often the comparisons are irrelevant, inaccurate, and are simply used to deflect pertinent criticism. (Godwin's Law)

1 Reply

@hightor,

When someone makes an invalid comparison, it should be considered and rejected. When I reject a comparison you make, hopefully I can list the facts and tell you why I think your argument is irrelevant or invalid. I have done that on many of our interactions. The phrase "invalid comparison" is a perfectly good phrase, and it invites me to be thoughtful as I consider it.

These phrases, such as "Bothsidesism" invite you to reject the comparison without considering it. People throw out this term as a way of discarding a point of view. Rarely is this accompanied with any thought, it is attacking the intent of the speaker rather than addressing what he said.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I have done that on many of our interactions.

But not successfully.

Quote:

These phrases, such as "Bothsidesism" invite you to reject the comparison without considering it.

You're not obligated to accept that choice. The phrases don't have the authority that well-known logical fallacies enjoy, they simply refer to a style of argument. As such they are useful when forming your own argument, so as to be prepared if the term is applied to you.

Quote:

People throw out this term as a way of discarding a point of view.

And there are points of view which deserve to be rejected. There are times when the terms are valid and applicable and there are times when the terms are misused.

Quote:

Rarely is this accompanied with any thought, it is attacking the intent of the speaker rather than addressing what he said.

If a speaker's intentions are objectionable one is not obligated to address what he said.

0 Replies

Forums
» Liberal Absolutism: What do they have against sea lions?

Read Question
Reply to All

Liberal Absolutism: What do they have against sea lions?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know