In case anyone's wondering, the name comes from this cartoon: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

For reference, the couple in that cartoon are racists.

See the errata http://wondermark.com/2014-errata/

Huh, this whole situation just reminded me of an Erich Kästner novel I read as a child ("Pünktchen und Anton"). It had interludes between some of the chapters that were written in cursive font, where the author summarizes what just happened and discusses the characters motives, the implications of their actions and sometimes alludes to personal anecdotes.

In the prologue of the book he wrote that the story is about serious topics he would like to get children to think about, and decided to add the notes for some children who aren't exactly great at that thinking part. In hindsight phrased rather directly and condescendingly (I just looked it up to double check), but I think quite fitting to the situation here, seeing the cartoon first and then reading the clarification.

It's IMO very sad if a cartoonist has to explain the rather thin symbolism because enough people "don't get it" and go directly to pointing and screaming "racist bigots".

I read the cartoon and even read the clarification:

“Since behaviors are the result of choice, I would assert that the woman’s objection to sea lions — which, if the metaphor is understood, is read as actually an objection to human beings who exhibit certain behaviors — is not analogous to a prejudice based on race, species, or other immutable characteristics.”

Sounds exactly like the sort of thing I’d expect to hear from somebody who really wanted to show me some FBI crime statistics :p

I wonder if there is a corollary to the "If everyone you meet is an asshole" maxim when it comes to injected political opinions.

The thing is that we're at a point where I can't tell if you're talking about someone who is always complaining about being accused of being racist, or the people who are always complaining about everything being racist.

"I don't think you've properly thought this through." LMAO

this errata get's a chef's kiss.

whats wrong w/ that? its art

> It sounds like this person got sick of “Sea Lioning”

It's more like some other people got sick of that guy coming up with baseless assumptions, and (more importantly) baseless assertions, in order to support his goals; and a few of them don't let that go any more.

Because that's a constant pattern for him (he's been Perl's pumpking for several years, and then part of the ruling trio since the change in the governance system caused by the aftermaths of the announcement of his Perl 7 "plan"): he comes up with a change, or a plan like the Perl 7 plan, something that on the surface seems researched and based, and then... he backpedals because he is unable to sustain his claims, or he is proven wrong by people who actually know what they are talking about (with testimonies of recognised people, data, facts forming a consensus), or it becomes clear he didn't study the consequences of his planned changes (again, other people have to put up with the work needed to study that).

And sometimes, after a consensus has emerged and he either (seemingly) caved in or played possum (after all, both are more or less fine in a real human interaction, no need to publicly acknowledge every "defeat"), he comes back with the same points which have already been disproven. For example, this time he was arguing with some invisible authority arguments. While real data, real testimony of trustable people is sitting there and say the opposite.

Since I follow Perl 5 mailing lists in the recent years, he exhibits that same behavioural pattern. He probably doesn't even do it on purpose, he probably means well, he probably thinks his propositions are well researched and all. But he doesn't learn to do better for the next time.

Also, yesterday or 2 days ago, the Steering Committee trio of which he is part decided that for Perl 7, the decision would be to side more with the majority of Perl 5 core developers (that's a manner of saying it which is very abridged, but well...), than with his original plan. So you've got to keep in mind that his burst comes after what he probably felt like a disavowal, and this might be either the real reason, or a fair part of the reasons, rather than this alleged sea-lioning.

Thanks for the accurate and considerate response. Interesting to see the comments from people with no exposure to the people or situation.

Well, in this kind of case (which happens twice a week on the whole Web), most commenters side automatically with the first person who talks, as if it was gospel, especially these days when the person poses as a victim (it is normal, the burst often happens because you feel you are a victim, because you feel other people are unfair to you). The second effect is that once they've picked a side, that side, they then generally reject contradictory statements.

Now, I don't say my version (with its shortcuts and its dead angles) represents the absolute truth (it cannot for the simple reason I do not follow all communication channels), but damn, why don't people try to understand an learn a little bit about the surroundings of a situation before jumping to conclusions? It's okay not to comment, when one doesn't have the slightest knowledge of a situation; it's also okay to wait until one gets a little bit of cross information, both about the proceedings of final straw and about the general history/context. And the picture will almost always look less black and white, thus less outrageous.

Sadly this poor behavior seems to be encouraged everywhere these days.

Oh my gosh, I have never heard this term in my life before but it explains so many of my experiences.

Do you have any evidence of that being the case?

/me barks

Yeah but it's very classical. People come in many variations: between the religious autists, the emotional ragers, the ashamed paranoids, the hiding incompetents, the coward wises, the hungry juniors, etc, we've all seen them each time we try a shy challenge of an established practice. Especially in IT where you can survive a little bit longer with absolutely no ability for politeness or compromise.

I think the guy got a bit too emotional over that, maybe because he cares too much ? At some point you have to let go: you're not alone, and you don't have enough support ? It's your fault for thinking human relationship are about truth and reality rather than exchanges of favor and networks of influence.

Let it go this time, build a support network, come back with the proposal and see who whines the loudest. No point stepping down or leaving in shame.

> you make a statement of opinion and are harangued into backing it up in detail

I really wish this attitude would disappear from the internet. If you make an assertion, you should be prepared to provide the details. Nobody is forcing anyone to make statements of "opinion" in a public forum with high visibility. If you don't want to provide support for your argument, all you have to do is not post. Ironically, you posted this on HN, where there is an expectation of doing exactly that, and for good reason.

Edit: Since this comment seems to bother lots of people, note the quotes around "opinion" and my use of the word "assertion". My problem with the parent comment is that misinformation can slip into comments that are phrased as opinions.

Please explain, in detail, why you believe there should be a high barrier to entry for expressing opinions, how doing so would lead to anything but an impoverished marketplace of ideas, and how you reconcile any of that with the fact that you yourself just published an opinion without much justification. Cite at least three peer-reviewed papers to support your position, or else be condemned as a charlatan.

> Please explain, in detail, why you believe there should be a high barrier to entry for expressing opinions

I put quotes around "opinion". For instance:

"The blub language has the worst debugging support of any language I've used."

That is absolutely an opinion. It gives the impression of an informed opinion. Someone reads that and concludes that the blub language should be avoided because debugging will be a terrible experience. Perhaps what that person was saying is that blub doesn't have GDB support and in fact that turns out to be wrong. If someone asks for elaboration, they should indeed elaborate.

In the case of my comment, I just provided details so that everything is on the table. None of the other things you've asked for are relevant to my original comment.

Sea-lioning isn't nicely asking someone to elaborate on their view or asking for more specifics.

This is not sea-lioning:

Person 1: I really think X is bad because A, B C.

Person 2: I disagree, X is fine because D, E, F.

Person 1: eh... I disagree. And I think D is problematic too.

That's merely a civil discussion.

This is sea-lioning:

Person 1: I really think X is bad because A, B, and C.

Person 2: You're wrong. X is fine. Why don't you explain why its wrong hmm?

Person 1: I just said, because A B and C....

Person 2: A B and C are irrelevant; Why don't you explain to me why X is bad. You can't do it! You don't know what you're talking about!

Person 1: I'm actually an expert in X, I've worked on it for two decades. I don't understand why you don't see A, B, and C are problematic?

Person 2: I highly doubt you know anything about X. If you can't explain why X is bad perhaps its your own limited understanding of X. All you talk about is A B and C but you don't explain why X is bad!

(Person 2 isn't providing any real counter-arguments; they are just saying Person 1 is wrong, asking for additional evidence, and then rejecting Person 1's arguments/evidence without explaining why Person 1 is wrong.)

Keep in mind the stress here is on the personal opinion - and not statement of fact. For example, whether or not code has "cruft" is entirely a subjective manner. There is no objective measure of "cruft" in code. You cannot "prove" code is crufty. However, you can put a group of engineers in a room, have them examine some code, and they can establish a consensus as to whether or not code is in fact "crufty" despite there being no formal criteria to define it as such. Generally, it means "messy and difficult to maintain". If you are a core maintainer, and your job is to interact with this code on a regular basis, you're the de-facto expert on its quality (albeit with some personal biases). If you think the code you have to work on is bad, and people don't work on that code are saying you're wrong after just skimming it, it's going to drive you insane.

> Keep in mind the stress here is on the personal opinion - and not statement of fact.

I wouldn't have taken issue with your comment if you had stated it that way. The problem was with classifying it as wrong to challenge something simply because it's an opinion. Ridiculous objections and ridiculous requests are of course not deserving of a response, but that's not how you phrased it.

A good example is this other reply to my comment: "Please explain, in detail, why you believe there should be a high barrier to entry for expressing opinions, how doing so would lead to anything but an impoverished marketplace of ideas" That is misleading because a reader will infer that I actually said either of those things. Anyone posting something like that should be prepared to justify or withdraw the comment.

> If you are a core maintainer, and your job is to interact with this code on a regular basis, you're the de-facto expert on its quality (albeit with some personal biases). If you think the code you have to work on is bad, and people don't work on that code are saying you're wrong after just skimming it, it's going to drive you insane.

What you describe is the usual case, so it's a reasonable thing to assume, but if we examine reality we can make a case for concluding in this particular instance it's reversed.

S. is a newcomer, ISTR he started out with XS just a few years before. I just spot-checked the last 200 out of 500 commits, not a single one touches the core C part, it's only documentation and release maintenance. I mention these not because I think they are strong evidence for the case that he is not an expert, but easily verifiable. nwclark, pevans, davem definitely got their fingers dirty with the core of the code base, and were (2 out of 3) also previous release managers, we should consider experts and not "just skimming".

> whether or not code has "cruft" is entirely a subjective manner.

This was not was the argument was about. It was rather: one party claims the cruft is a big impediment against improvements, the other party claims the cruft is not a big deal in that regard.

None of the people directly involved (myself included) are core maintainers beyond the weakest definition of the term, and all of us (including Sawyer) were referencing the stated opinions of actual core maintainers.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, you haven't provided any evidence or details. Can you please defend your statement that this norm will improve discourse on the internet?

I am just asking questions.

P.S. My real opinion that this is very subtle, and it depends on what you're saying. As always, good judgment is essential. Some claims demand proof, others are more throwaway. The biggest pathology I see is where people think they should be able to say insulting things and not be called on it, as long as they don't address anyone directly.

There's a well known principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It doesn't necessarily follow that non-extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence (or elaboration etc.) but it's a good starting point. Venue also matters. Applying the standards of a courtroom or thesis defense to a non-controversial claim in a casual forum is not a good-faith behavior. It's an exhaustion tactic, unfairly placing the entire burden of proof on the original speaker as though the sea lion's preferred contrary position should be assumed as a default. That's why it is so reviled among people who actually value a spirited exchange of ideas.

>If you make an assertion, you should be prepared to provide the details. Nobody is forcing anyone to make statements of "opinion" in a public forum with high visibility. If you don't want to provide support for your argument, all you have to do is not post. Ironically, you posted this on HN, where there is an expectation of doing exactly that, and for good reason.

I disagree with your assessment.[0]

Furthermore, the underlying reasons for that disagreement are (or should be) obvious. As such, I decline to elucidate.[1]

[0] See what I did there?

[1] Why should I be required to invest time and energy in explaining myself?[2] Especially if I believe my statement (I'm including this because I'm guessing it isn't, at least for some folks) is intuitively obvious.

[2] That's not a rhetorical question.

That's missing the point. Sealioning doesn't mean "provide details", it's shorthand for an argumentation tactic, which enables its practitioners to argue successfully "against" a position without evidence simply by demanding evidence from someone else. Someone coming in to sealion a discussion doesn't actually want the discussion to be had on the basis of details (because if they did, they would be providing some). They want to shut the other person down without having to go through that trouble.

Essentially, sealioning (as understood in this context) in an attempt to suppress dissent. And that's bad, no matter what tactic is employed.

Sealioning is totally a thing. Another thing (which to my knowledge doesn't have a well-known name) is accusing someone of sealioning as a way to deflect from having said something that could really use to be supported, while refusing to support it.

"Pi is not transcendental!"

"Wow really, I'd love to see the proof of that!"

"You're just sealioning!"

I'm not making any claim about which of these two patterns is more common or a bigger problem, but both things totally exist.

I like to see sealioning as going "why? why? why? why?" (now say that with sealion sounds). They may appear to be questions, but they're not really.

I don't see this having occurred in either direction. An assertion was made, contradicting details were provided, and then it became emotional due to past interactions.

Everyone has finite time in this life.

We can't defend every intuition or opinion we have ever mentioned. People can disagree and carry on with the business of life.

In that spirit, you're perfectly entitled to have a differing opinion from mine and I will defend your right to disagree with me or anyone.