Well that’s cute.

We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy.

For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to:

> Sealioning 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 not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.

Look man there are several different ways people argue and calling someone a liar or saying a policy is cruel despite the official line is entirely reasonable. If you’re taking that so personally that you have to personally respond to everyone about that then I have to wonder if you’re just trying to defend the policy in a motte and then retreat to the bailey of “I don’t support the policy I just don’t like how you’re arguing.” Calling someone cruel or a liar is not a slur, they’re calling out what they view as shameful acts. I think it’s within the bounds of civility to call someone cruel or a liar. I really think you’re just trolling with repeated requests for civility here.

Calling someone a liar is not an argument.

> Calling someone a liar is not an argument.

Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?