Is is weird that when I see a comic, there's an inverse relationship between the depth and detail of the drawing and my likelihood of reading the strip?
Not irrational. The "detail" in this style of comic is visual clutter that makes it actually significantly harder to see what's in the panel right away
That's not what this comic is about, although I can kind of see why you thought that.
Instead of just downvoting you, shakes head at fellow lemmings, I'll explain what sealioning is.
"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, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter." - Wikipedia
The problem is the first frame. The woman says she doesn't think a whole group shouldn't exist. You can't say that and expect a person from that group to ask why she thinks he should be dead... Replace the sealion with any minority group and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Replace what she said with "trans women are women" or something progressive and I would be 100% on board with the comic. At best the comic is executed badly, at worst it's an exercise in making anti-racists look bad.
At best the comic is executed badly, at worst it’s an exercise in making anti-racists look bad.
How about making sea-lioning look bad. Because, you know, that's what the comic says, straight-out, in the first panel: It's anti sea-lion.
Doesn't matter whether it's a Jewish or Nazi or black or white or disabled sea-lion, it's a sea-lion and they suck (solely or in addition to other reasons) because they're sea-lions. Fuck sea-lions.
It sounds like what you're saying is that you only think it's only bad for someone to sealion if you personally agree with the original sentiment, which is kind of missing the point.
Sealioning is always bad and it is a terrible debating style.
It's about arguing in good faith, what ever the position and not just shutting down the debate via the text/verbal equivalent of a DDOS attack, simply overloading a target with questions via an insincere pretence of ignorance.
You see, the comic is meant to be ironic. The character says they don't like sealions, then a sealion (which is a visual metaphor for the concept of sealioning) shows up and is increasingly unbearable for the next five panels despite maintaining a pretense of civility.
Other related argument techniques used on the internet (and elsewhere) often commingled with Sealioning:
Butwhataboutism is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation.
Also, ignoring the rebuttal and constantly shifting the attack to a tangentially related part of the discussion forcing the opponent to defend and rebut each new point, generally exhausting them and causing frustration and irritation.
JAQing off is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.
Moving the Goalposts in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. Closely related to butwhataboutism.
Appeal to Hypocrisy (tu quoque) basically tries to invalidate your opponent’s argument by using a “your side did it too, worse” and shift the argument to them defending themselves.
And don't forget the good old ad hominem, where instead of addressing any points, it attacks the one who made it in an attempt to intimidate the one making the point and applying peer pressure on others reading it to keep them away from that position.
Had someone use that on me earlier today lol. They aren't particularly effective on Lemmy, I've noticed. On Reddit, it depended on if they are for or against the popular circle jerk.
Yep. That happens at the end when they get pissed they cannot “win”. Usually those engaged in the above tactics are well versed in exhausting their opponents rather than making it personal, though it does happen.
Also on the list is the Argument from fallacy : just because I’m an idiot who presented my stance poorly doesn’t mean I’m wrong, it just means I failed to prove I’m right
Important detail, regarding argumentum ad hominem (AAH): a lot of people incorrectly conflate the fallacy with insults, even if both things are independent. For example, let's say that someone said "the Moon is made of green cheese". Here are four possible answers:
Replies
With insult
Without insult
With AAH
You're a bloody muppet, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust.
You're no astronomer, thus the Moon is made of rocks and dust.
Without AAH
Yeah, because there's totally cheese orbiting Earth for a bazillion years, right? Bloody muppet.
Cheese wouldn't be orbiting Earth for so long without spoiling.
This conflation between ad hominem and insults interacts really funny with sealioning. Sometimes you get the sea lion claiming that you're using AAH because you lost patience with its stupidity, but they're also prone to use non-insulting AAH.
The insults never add anything useful to arguments and still appeal to the same basic things as insults alone, even if they are accompanied by logically sound arguments. And while they don't logically weaken a position, they can emotionally weaken it for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness.
Rage and anger might feel powerful, but they actually betray a sense of a lack of control. Trolls take advantage of this because it's a sign they are getting to you. Plus it's rare that people respond to insults by agreeing with the one who insulted them and the times when they do usually involve an appeal to authority (where the insulter has authority to back up their position and challenging them can have consequences).
If you're measuring argument "strength" logically, the first paragraph is false; and if you're doing it rhetorically, it's misleading.
On logical grounds, insults neither add nor subtract appeal to the argument. That can be seen in the example: at the core, the argument in the bottom left could be rephrased to remove the insult, and it would still convey the same reasoning. Emotional factors shouldn't be considered on first place..
And, on rhetorical grounds, insults can weaken or strengthen a position depending on the claim, context, and audience. (A good example of that would be the old "fuck off Nazi".)
for those who recognize frustration reactions as a sign of weakness. [plus the second paragraph]
This is an audience matter, so it applies to the rhetorical strength of the argument, not the logical one: I don't argument for the sake of assumers, and claims to recognise frustration out of how others convey an argument is assumer tier irrationality. As such, even if insults would weaken the argument for them, I don't care.
In fact, they're perhaps the major reason why I personally would recur to insults - to discourage their participation, since assumers are as much of a burden as sea lions (for roughly the same reasons).
If, however, you do argument for the benefit of this sort of trashy individual, be aware that even the assumers might react positively towards insults against a third party. Some will make shit up that you're "weak" and "frustrated"; some, that you're "strong" and "brave". It'll depend on the general acceptability of the claim that you're making on first place.
Yeah, I can't help but feel that the message of this comic would be turned on it's head if you'd replace the sea lion with a Jew, black, Palestinian, gay, trans, etc....
I think an important part is that the sea lion is pretending to be civil while still being extremely annoying. It's adjacent to the whole thing of saying vile things with civil language (then getting upset when people respond uncivilly).
Yeah I interpreted the meme as them being sealion-phobic. The sealion was therefore rightfully offended and wanted to debate. However, the sea lion should've gone away after the 4th panel and not broke into the guys house.
Source: I am trans and would not break into a mildly annoying persons house harrasing them for a source.
You know I kind of find it funny that the internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just "people that I don't like". It doesn't really matter whether or not the person is actually "sealioning" anymore, or whether or not the word ever had a definition in the first place, because it's just something that you're gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn't like your line of argument, or the fact that you've disagreed with them, or whatever. Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there's another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there's another one.
Oops, you're a troll, you're a bot, you're a sealion, you're strawmanning my position, you're arguing in bad faith. Signals get crossed over the written medium, anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they're not. There's better insurance, better strategies against that, then just kind of labeling it and then moving on.
I think the biggest problem is that labeling the behavior doesn't really tell you what your response should be. If someone is arguing against you in bad faith, you sort of have the options of, arguing back against them in equal measure, equally bad faith, which I would say is the trap most people fall into. You also have the option of arguing against them as though you don't recognize them as being in bad faith, while being as courteous and nice as possible, which can go some amount of the way to clarifying that you're not arguing in bad faith if you've been mistaken. Or you can just not respond, which is probably a good idea. Don't feed the troll, don't reward them with attention.
But also, to some degree, someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn't really matter. What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they're arguing correctly. If they're doing so incorrectly, then they're not going to be giving you anything interesting to work off of, and then you should probably just ignore them. That's my advice. It's like, they're just a more advanced form of spam, and the solution to spam is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
That's a lot of words to say the internet is full of useless bad faith arguments that are meaningless.
(This is said in jest. I completely agree with your position)
You're totally off target there. The problem is that we're mentally unfit to deal with this much info on a daily basis, and we're social competitors by nature. We default to scoring points on each other. This is what we are, and we're only noticing it because now the whole world can hear the whole world, all the time.
Reasoned debate isn't even done perfectly by those actively in forensics/debate clubs. It's a learned skill that only shows its true value among other adepts. At the same time, knowing who was funnier or more creatively insulting is a universally admired lowest common denominator.
The utopian promise of the internet has turned to ash in the mouths of its greatest proponents as the glaring light of the collected world has laid bare the indelible stamp of our lowly origins. We need smaller spaces, not larger, to shine more softly among friends who are not so exhausted. That's why I'm here instead of Reddit.
For the sake of form I'd like to have sourced a few of my claims, but time presses. I hope that my somewhat more gloomy views are not too bothersome.
That is a kind of cynical worldview, i will admit. I think with the amount of people responding to my post that kind of, haven't really gotten what I'm trying to get across, I think I've failed with making my point, perhaps.
To put it better, I think it realistically shouldn't matter. People looking to score points, people looking for easy targets for bad faith pesterings and attacks. The mentality and approach I've taken, which I would espouse as advice to others, is that, despite the kind of, stupidity of the internet, if you are going to respond, you should attempt to get something out of it. Even just to be conscious of what you're getting out of it, would be a step up, too many people take easy owns because they want to reaffirm their own ego, and aren't even conscious that's what they're looking to do. It would even be better, I would think, if people were conscious of that, even if they still did it in the end. I mean that's probably what we're all doing to some extent.
In any case, I think, actually trying to present an external argument, right, it's harder, it's not as rewarding, most people aren't going to do it. But I think passersby will still appreciate it when it's done, I think it's objectively more useful, than an easier to parse, easy own, and I think potentially, if done correctly, it can more legitimately distinguish between bad faith arguers and people who are just arguing poorly, which can hopefully make people less cynical and more satisfied with their existence online. It's a sisyphean task, sure, but sisyphus is also jacked, and we all needed the exercise anyways.
This is not really to counteract any of what you're saying, though, I think we're kind of, making points on two different levels. You're arguing a more kind of, societal reality point, which I would totally agree with, I'm arguing an individual goal kind of point, like an actionable advice kind of thing. Hopefully, anyways.
All received as intended, I think. I must have woken up on a poetic side of the bed this morning, I'm glad I didn't come off too pompous for a serious reply. I don't sense that we disagree in any way worth quibbling over.
Doing things with intentionality these days is something we get too rarely even from artists, and that's their entire job. The unexamined life will always have its proponents, eh?
The internet has kind of, invented a million different technical debate sounding words for basically just "people that I don't like"
No, a lot of terms for people arguing in bad faith have originated on the internet because there's a lot of different bad faith arguments on the internet.
Confusing sealioning and other bad faith arguing with "people that I don't like" is a classic and common example of the bad faith trope called a strawman.
It doesn't really matter whether or not the person is actually "sealioning"
It absolutely does. You can't have a rational discussion with someone arguing in bad faith. Someone who's wrong or seemingly wrong but arguing in good faith might learn something or cause you to learn something, whereas someone arguing in bad faith is only interested in "winning" and completely closed off to even the most valid counterpoints.
it's just something that you're gonna get slapdash labeled with when someone doesn't like your line of argument or the fact that you've disagreed with them, or whatever.
It really really isn't. That you keep going on about this misconception implies that you've often been correctly accused of arguing in bad faith and are trying to fend that off by convincing others that there's no such thing as bad faith, only subjective dislike. Which is objectively wrong.
Thought-terminating cliche, oh, there's another buzzword, and, oh, ironically, there's another one.
The real irony is that you're trying to terminate the thought that bad faith arguing exists via a bad faith use of a thought-terminating cliché.
anyone will inevitably think someone else is arguing in bad faith when they're not
Again objectively false and saying a lot more about how YOU argue on the internet than internet discussion in general.
labeling the behavior doesn't really tell you what your response should be
While that's technically true, it's much easier to know how to deal with something when you know WHAT you're dealing with, whether you say it out loud or not.
someone else arguing in bad faith shouldn't really matter.
That's just ridiculously false. Couldn't be further from the truth.
What should matter, I would think, is whether or not they're arguing correctly
...arguing in bad faith IS by definition a way of arguing incorrectly.
solution [to bad faith arguing] is pretty simple. You block it, you ignore it.
Sure, but simple doesn't always mean easy. Especially when you have poor impulse control and were brought up to consider it incredibly rude and disrespectful to not answer when someone's trying to explain you something, whether they're right or wrong.
See so my kneejerk response to this on seeing it, is, oh, someone's going, literally line by line of my comment, and, line by line, refuting what I say. That's what I would classically kind of think of as, oh, this is a bad faith argument, especially because you extrapolate from my post and say, oh, you must've been accused of arguing in bad faith constantly, and are trying to convince everyone that bad faith arguments are actually epic and cool! This is not the case, that's not what I'm really arguing. Despite these somewhat clear signals, in my mind, I'm going to respond, because I'm a hypocrite, of course.
I'm not disputing the actual definitions of sealioning or strawmanning, or that these can be potentially useful terms, what I'm doing is I'm saying that people should put more thought into what it is other people are actually doing with their argument, and what it is that they want out of their engagement with other people, rather than just labeling someone else as something, and then going about their day.
That doesn't really help anyone, it's just a kind of self-satisfying thing to do. Anyone reading the comment has to trust that the person doing the labeling is doing it correctly, and to responsibly confirm that, they're going to have to have read the preceding comment and made their own mind up about it. So it's not helpful to just label something as "misinformation", and then move on as though you've provided some sort of divinely ordained moral service to everyone passing by. I've encountered that sort of mentality before, that debates aren't really done out of like, an intellectual curiosity, or to kind of, talk through your own viewpoints while listening to someone else and they're input, they're done for some third party audience. Which I think is, you know, a less helpful way of viewing debates, viewing arguments. Less helpful for a third party, but also less helpful for yourself. If you're doing it correctly, it shouldn't matter much whether or not your opposition is arguing with you in bad faith, because you, and everyone else, should still be able to get something out of it.
I'd also say, a bulk of my point was in the latter half of my comment, the part that you didn't respond to line by line. My point is that, realistically, bad faith arguments can come from anywhere, even from people who insist and fully believe that they're not arguing in bad faith, i.e. people who are actually arguing in good faith and just doing so really poorly because they're dumb. This being the case, that the signals are kind of indistinguishable, and it also being the case that bad faith arguments are kind of, doomed to happen, my advice is that people should either ignore them completely, and not let them kind of, occupy as much free rent as they do, in their minds, or they should work to try and get something out of them despite their bad faith. That was the point I intended to make. Arguing in such a manner, is more beneficial to an observing third party, it can potentially solve the problem of separating signals between bad faith arguers, and poor arguers, and it can help you figure out what your real opinion is on something, and make you better at debate.
Edit: To clarify, what I'm arguing against in my post is people who just summarize someone's argument as "oh, here's a list of all the logical fallacies you've performed", and then they haven't done any of the work to say why that's important, or how those fallacies affected something. I don't think that's a helpful function, to anyone, and it leads to a bunch of people who don't know what any specific fallacy is, other than that it's something that they can just kind of slap onto arguments they hate.
Strawman is a pretty common fallacy that I've noticed this happen to. I'd also like to comment that, you know, sure, am I creating a strawman by arguing against that type of behavior? I don't fuckin know. I was under the impression that a strawman was when you were arguing against someone, and then you basically put words in their mouth and extrapolate positions in their argument that they never really took. When I posted that comment, I wasn't arguing against any specific person, I was just commenting about a general thing I've experienced. I wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth, because I wasn't responding to anyone.
We're all on the internet, you can look up the actual definition for "strawman" like I just did.
To paraphrase: strawmanning an argument is not so concretely about "putting words in anyone's mouth".
It is the process of debating a newly-created stance/position/idea that is easily disproven and visibly flawed when this new position may or may not be related to anything in the pre-existing debate. You don't have to be 'responding to anyone'; in fact, it fits more if you are not arguing something that anyone in the debate has referenced before.
Friend, are you familiar per chance with ancient Greece? Humans have been labeling argumentative behavior since the dawn of language. All those things have Greek or Latin terms. Debate has been considered an art form and seriously studied for millennia. There's no right way of answering a bad faith argument because it is contextual and made more difficult by the toneless nature of the written word. But in some contexts, even on the internet, you don't have the option of ignoring it. Sometimes it is your job or your responsibility to answer to it, then you have to be creative and artful, depending on the circumstances and what your goal is.
Yup, deleting those losers who literally follow you for days arguing over the stupidest shit ever is very liberating. There's an air born squid I've blocked that's made this place far more tolerable LoL.
I usually don’t block them. It’s better to see what they’re saying and be able to warn others about them. Also, I report their nonsense propaganda as misinformation as I see it- which is seemingly most of what they say.
Doing my part to keep lemmy from falling into a far-left biased hellhole.
This strip has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you make a statement in a public forum, don't be surprised when the public responds. They are not entitled to your attention, but you're not entitled to their silence. I will not be providing any sources to back up my position, but I'm sure your requests for them will be very witty.
If you make a statement in a public forum, don't be surprised when the public responds
Sure. That's not what sealioning is, though. As the comic illustrates, sealioning is bad faith weaponizing of false politeness and feigned high mindedness, not honest inquiry.
How was it a "public comment"? Two people were talking to one another. The sealion interrupted their conversation and inserted itself into it. Then it followed them around instead of fucking off when shown it was not welcome in their even more private lives. Not everything needs to be a debate, not everything said needs to be debunked / supported by evidence beyond every miniscule amount of doubt. Know when to leave, simple.
Her: I don't mind most people. But racists? I could do without racists.
Him: Don't say that out loud!
racist: Pardon me, I couldn't help but overhear...
Him: Now you've done it
[...]
My edit kind of ruins the whole sea lion sealioning visual joke but I hope my point comes across well enough.
I am sure some people who troll racist would do some sealioning but they are doing it in bad faith cus. Ya know, racists.
I get that you can group people based on race but you can also do it based on what they believe in, which I feel the latter is what most people thought David Malki was going for.
It's actually the comic that coined the term. The creator just, for some reason, decided to use weirdly racial language to depict it, and imply the prejudice is based on evidence.
Which is kind of weird.
As is pretending it isn't, when you could just say "yeah it's a little problematic" and move on with your life.
Let me guess, your country has deep seated issues with racism the population either refuses to acknowledge or "solves" by simply not letting other races in?
This comic was made by an American, in reference to an American issue, so pretending the American viewpoint isn't valid by virtue of being American is just, you know.
Stupid. Intellectually dishonest. Dare I say, pig headed.
To add what other people have said: the sealion in the comic is following them around and being obnoxious. It even follows them to their bedroom.
One aspect of sealioning is continually trying to "debate" someone for something they once said, even if they're currently engaged in a completely unrelated conversation.
But the reality they're referencing is someone being "in their house" in the sense of being in their tweet replies. Nobody is following you around online, you're carrying them around in your pocket.
my inbox on lemmy. there are users who will follow me from thread to thread harassing me about an argument we had days ago, or will bring it up out of context if i reply to them, which happens often when i don't pay attention to the username. some of them make posts an comments whining about how biased the mods are when their harassing comments are removed or they get banned, and some have even gone so far as to start maintaining multiple identities to continue to spread misinformation and harass me and other users.
and the invitation to see my inbox was a bit hyperbolic. in truth, you only need to look at my comment history and the few individuals with whom i have had protracted disagreements should leap out at you.
some people will definitely follow you around online if you rub them the wrong way.
That seems more like you are going to hang out in a place where those people also hang out, and are encountering them there, as opposed to them following you around.
Does anyone else feel this (and, subsequently, the term itself) is mildly racist? Or at least defensive of racist/bigoted statements? Like, if someone said "I could do without [insert race here]," is it unreasonable to hold them accountable? I get this is intended to be about people not letting go of minor nitpicks, but the setup is pretty poor, imo.
In the universe presented in the comic: Sea lions are born sea lions, can't change that, and are sentient to the point of having the capacity for language.
My point isn't we should feel bad for cartoon sea lions, it's that it's not much of a reach for someone to read this and think they are talking about minorities. "Damn right! I should be able to say I don't like (race) without being hassled for it!"
If the comic then had an egg asking "why would you say that?" you'd have a point.
The comic has a sea lion fully capable of speech, and a person saying "I do not like this clearly sentient creature, because they bother me when I say I don't like them as a whole."
seems an extremely oversensitive and overly literal take to me. it's just a comedic way to represent a certain type of irritating persona, for the same meaning the character could as well say she dislikes annoying people and be subsequently annoyed by one across the rest of the panels, but that would be less of a comic
My point is you could change "Sea lion" to any minority, change the sea lion itself to that minority, and the comic does not lose all meaning. It can be interpreted as someone saying "I do not like (group)" and then being harassed by a member of that group while they repeatedly say nothing but "go away". A racist could read this and think "Damn straight, I should be allowed to say I don't like (race) without being harassed for it!"
With "pedophile" or "murderer" the evidence for them having done harm is self evident. In the comic the reasoning for disliking sea lions is not self evident, and the comic could be easily interpreted as "I should be allowed to say I don't like any group I want and not have to defend myself."
Just wanna say thanks for holding the torch here. You pretty much echoed any response I would've made if I'd had the time, but probably better XD Sorry you got the brunt of the hate.
OK i think i understand you better, but still it seems a long stretch to me. a racist could read this and etc but so what? if he reads fables and decides that the tortoise represents this minority and the hare is that one his outlandish take does not indicate a problem in the original intention
Sealioning as genuine trolling is shitty and done in bad faith.
But it is completely fair to call out people and ask them for evidence when they make broad statements that are easily verifiable like "black people are more violent than white people" or "Republicans are just as unfriendly towards poor people as Democrats" Etc.
But yeah, here without the context it's easy to get confused what Sealioning actually is.
Sure, but in this comment the sealion is initially acting in good faith towards by what any standard of the world presented in the comic would be a racist.
Are you sure about that? The first actual request of the sealion is ridiculously overbroad and would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to comply with.
At which point the sealion would doubtlessly respond by either nitpicking one example amongst many or moving the goalposts.
Doesn't seem to me that it was acting in good faith at any point.
Idk bro, you could replace the sealion with that guy who un-racisted all those Klan members and I bet the initial interaction was pretty similar. It gets back on track when the sealion follows him home and all, but I think it would have been a stronger comic if they were talking about other things when the sealion hounds him about a different topic.
Then people who don't know what sealioning is look up what the fuck it's about and it doesn't look the sealion is just practicing active anti-racism.
I'd actually argue the contrary: that it's initially questionable whether or not the sealion is acting in bad faith rather than immediately obvious mirrors real life and as such better illustrates how a sealion differs from an immediately obvious troll.
It's clear from the context of the comic that it's the behavior of such sea mammals that she dislikes rather than anything intrinsic that they don't choose themselves and can't change.
The sealion immediately latching onto a misunderstanding of intent and refusing to let go of it is in fact another way in which the comic effectively illustrates sealioning.
....this is beginning to feel uncomfortably meta..
Yeah, someone here isn't admitting there's a weird racial element to "I just don't like the way all of those types act..." when all you need to say is "yeah it's a little weird" and everyone can move on with things like saying "Yeah, fuck sealions."
It's also not a great look to pretend a direct, ongoing discussion in a specific post is the same as someone following you around social media, pretending ignorance of the topic, and endlessly requesting clarification.
Fine, you win. The racism that you're imagining in spite of the context showing otherwise is totally there and it's a really bad look for me to not just go along with your weird pet theory because you say so.
Yeah, this isn't just someone wanting a reasonable conversation and not getting it. This is the guy on reddit who goes on your profile and follows you around to other subs demanding your reply to a conversation you disengaged with weeks ago.
Gosh don't you hate it when this happens?! The last Sea lion I encountered blocked the elevator at work for four consecutive workdays because he "politely" refused to accept that "lions" without kitty paws are an abomination and should either not exist or strive to get a new name. The audacity!
Hee hee. I feel like the one being sealioned most of the time. It doesn't matter what I say, "I should like to have a reasonable debate about what you said. What proof do you have that this has ever happened, and if you don't say something I like I'll be back again to hound you about it until you validate me in a way that I sorely need."
Some people view every exchange on the internet as some sort of formal academic discourse, it's pretty weird. Can you imagine someone acting like that in person? You'd clearly tell them to fuck off, it's totally obnoxious.
Exactly. And some people view every post as some kind of assault on their own views or values. It makes me reluctant to post anything that may be quite radical or a unique take on something, because no matter my intentions, someone takes umbridge at it (and they really shouldn't, we need the wood).
Anyway - I don't mean to step on anyone's sacred cow when I post things, I'm just trying to bring a new slant or point of view most of the time. I'm fine with someone saying "I disagree, and here's why." I'm not fine with people saying, "I disagree because you're a stupid idiot."
