And I don’t want to debate.
And I don’t want to debate.
Mind you, that's not saying that the perception of sealioning is necessarily correct, but it certainly reads to me like the perception is there.
A: I think the moon is made of cheese.
B: Why do you think that? Do you know of any evidence?
A: Sea-lioning! I will not debate you!!
An example in practice is the talk page for Gamergate on Wikipedia, where organized brigades of trolls spent so much time re-asking the same questions over and over that at least for a while (I haven't checked if it's still the case) the mods there started topic-banning anyone who posted something already answered in the FAQ on the page.
No, it really isn't.
Here's the real backstory of "sealioning": Group A made some assertions. Group B refused to accept their assertions. Group A decided that what was called for was yet another in a long list of mechanisms for dismissing and invalidating criticism. And here we are.
You can't just wave a hand, or a rhetorical gimmick lifted from a webcomic, and make your critics go away. They will never go away. There are still people who think that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are dangerous. If you hurl abuse at them and find tricks like the "sealioning" accusation to dismiss them, you're just sinking below their level and making them look like the rational ones. A better policy: let the fools ask their foolish questions. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, and all the fools will accomplish is inadvertently help you educate the onlookers.
That's what that email (very politely) did, though, didn't it?
However well-intended it was meant, it was a reply to "please be considerate about your costumes" with (to paraphrase much more bluntly) "well, why should we care about college students being offensive or inoffensive?".
It's the kind of thing that is worth discussing in the abstract, but it would be hard to argue it's not tangential to the original topic.
"I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students."
The original email coaching students on acceptable costumes had 13 signatures from Yale administrators and faculty. Erika's email was NOT asking why anyone should care, it was asking why the students should not be their own agents.
The whole thing seems premeditated rather then fueled by student concerns when you consider she has written an article on the subject: http://ideas.time.com/2012/10/23/have-adults-ruined-hallowee...
That doesn't follow. Furthermore, she was signing her single name to her response to a letter signed by 13 administrators and faculty. If anything, her dissent might have reduced the appearance of a cohesive insertion of Yale authority. What I have quoted was near the heart of her message and sensibly supported throughout.
Her Time article was on the same theme of the insertion of adult control over Halloween. Is this supposed to reveal a "premeditated" crime?
* Her letter tries to influence the students she had authority over as her position as associate master. It was implicitly co-signed by her husband, the master. The letter was only sent to those students.
* Most of the rest of the letter has a different questioning rhetoric tone, of course no one can make you see that if you don't want to.
* The article shows she had an agenda and wasn't just reacting to the letter. It bring into question whether she is appropriate for the roll as associate masters since she apparently thought promoting her own agenda was more important than good relations to the students.