this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
352 points (89.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38914 readers
1186 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.

It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How is that evidence my feelings are hurt?

It’s just evidence that you are more sensitive then me when it comes to people disagreeing on the internet.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You lashing out with personal attacks when met with facts that debunk your beliefs is not the fault of others. And when you falsely perceive others as feeling the “anguish” (the word you chose) that you, yourself, feel in these moments, that’s psychological projection.

Nobody else is to blame for your inability to process rejection and the upending of your “beliefs” in a healthy manner; it’s yours and yours alone. Too bad you gambled your health and well-being on not getting health insurance, or you’d be able to work through such difficult emotions with a therapist.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You haven’t been able to debunk a single belief of mine so far so I haven’t had anything to lash out about.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

And the amnesia strikes again…

Convenient how that only happens when you have no rational, evidence-based response.

Or, perhaps, it’s another thing that psychologists refer to as “denial”…

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s mostly because what you say aligns with your beliefs but not mine so they aren’t as effective towards me as you’d like to believe.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Ah, the projection again…

You made this very clear, from the start, that this is - and always has been - about your “beliefs”. I have merely stated (and re-stated and re-stated) facts. Whether you believe those facts is irrelevant, and I don’t really care. I’m pretty sure that you’re so invested in your “beliefs” that no amount of facts would ever change your mind.

And I’m not here to change your mind— just to keep pointing out how, when, and why you’re wrong. See… I have no emotional investment here because these aren’t my “beliefs”…. They’re yours.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m not wrong, you are. But I’m not trying to forcibly change your mind because I respect your freedom to make objectively wrong choices for yourself.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I’m not wrong, you are

All evidence to the contrary.

But I’m not trying to forcibly change your mind because I respect your freedom to make objectively wrong choices for yourself.

There’s that amnesia again! I just said that I’m not trying to change your mind, that I don’t care what you believe, and that I don’t even think I could change your mind if I tried because of how emotionally invested you are in them— hence your lashing out when they’re challenged.

I also clearly said that you’re free to your “beliefs”— but the facts and evidence contradict them. You have chosen to lash out because you object to me pointing that out.

Not a gamble that’s paid off for you, I would say…

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Strange, as you’ve clearly laid out the odds, risks, etc. and you’re betting your life on your supposed “beliefs”.

Sure sounds like gambling to me…

https://lemm.ee/comment/12044548

Not to mention the gambling you’ve been doing this whole time by engaging in this silly debate

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don’t gamble and this is a friendly conversation.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You’re free to your “beliefs”, but the evidence here contradicts them

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I’ve clearly established it as fact, using evidence, repeatedly.

Unlike you and your “beliefs“ about health insurance and gambling

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your evidence is mostly telling me that I am wrong.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

No, it’s proving that you’re wrong with evidence to back up my claims that your “beliefs” on this subject are clearly based on ignorance.

Your choice to gamble your health and well-being on that ignorance is your own responsibility.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are you referring to the dictionary definition as your evidence?

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

There’s that convenient amnesia again!

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What’s the other evidence you’ve provided?

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There’s that amnesia again! You asked and I answered this question an hour ago:

You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.

It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.

Now you’re just Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You have to respond to the request with evidence first.

I’m just asking for evidence repeatedly that you refuse to produce repeatedly because it doesn’t exist.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You have to respond to the request with evidence first.

I have. Repeatedly. I even quoted the answer I gave an hour ago to this question in the comment you replied to. Theres that amnesia again!

I’m just asking for evidence repeatedly that you refuse to produce repeatedly because it doesn’t exist

No, you’re just Sealioning

Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.

Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it and I ask for it again or more, not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (28 children)

I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.

In the past three or so minutes since your last comment? That’s an obvious lie.

Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it

I have. There’s that amnesia again!

and I ask for it again or more

Which is exactly what you keep doing

not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.

This is a scenario that you just invented and which didn’t happen. The evidence in the comments here confirms this. Your failure to accept the evidence and the fact is not evidence that I did not present facts and evidence. You’re in inability to understand that is also not my responsibility.

It’s also an example of the Circular reasoning fallacy

Circular reasoning (Latincirculus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

load more comments (28 replies)