You do realise you’re using here the exact same sealion as you did in that thread, right?

I don’t. I’m genuinely trying but I don’t.

Given that you claim to not defend the IDF, and I don’t know your “motivations” or “intentions” or whatever¹, I’ll treat you as genuinely confused.

What's "sealioning", in a nutshell.

Sealioning is a debate tactic where someone keeps engaging in a debate through things like this:

• Questions / allegations on matters that are contextually obvious, while showing to expect others to rebuke them. Often through claims of ignorance.
• Questions / allegations that are completely irrelevant to the topic, but being treated as if they were. Whataboutisms, argumenta ad nauseam, etc.
• Clearly distorting what others say.
• Misleading / loaded questions, implicit assumptions, straw men… basically distorting what others say.
• Insistently claiming that they’re just trying to engage in a meaningful debate, or “just questioning” (JAQing off), etc.
• etc.

Ultimately, a sea lion makes the other side shut up or snap out - not through valid argumentation, but by shredding their patience. In both cases the sea lion can claim a victory.

Now, look at your comments in the linked discussion - because they provide context to this one. And let us pretend that the IDF was indeed committing another war crime than using human shields, i.e. that your “ackshyually” was indeed correct². Here’s what you see:

• The topic is about the IDF using human shields. The point of such a topic is to spread awareness of the atrocities committed by the IDF.
• Your top comment is an “ackshyually” about the exact definition of human shield (weak relevance, given the point of the topic).
• In the same comment you say “which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning” - shifting the focus from what the IDF is doing to what Hamas does. (whataboutism).
• Keeponstalin provides you a definition of the usage of human shields, plus multiple links that show that the usage of human shields is a common IDF strategy.
• Instead of addressing that definition, you highlight your alleged intentions (“I’m simply questioning…”), and claim that saying the IDF uses human shields “paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality”. Like, there’s no other way to interpret this excerpt except as you defending the IDF.

The only reasonable way to explain your behaviour there is sealioning: you shift the focus into semantics and Hamas, while claiming that you’re just asking questions, and not addressing what others said…

And before you say “but my intentions” - remember, the only person who knows what’s inside your head is yourself¹.

Now look at this thread. I said that you’re still sealioning because:

• claim of ignorance: “It’s still unclear to me”
• distortion of what I said: “Disagreeing on the definition of a term isn’t hypocrisy”. My exact words were “It [your defence of the IDF] does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.” So it’s clearly not about the disagreement of the definition, I called it hypocrisy because you claim surprise of being called a fascist³.

You were sealioning back then, claim ignorance, distort what someone else says…

It’s not hypocrisy or sealioning Felix was accusing me of.

I said those things. FelixCress is claiming that you’re a fascist.

If it’s about me being annoying, pedantic, or whatever - fine, I don’t disagree. But my issue is with claims about me or my beliefs that just aren’t true. And if they are true, I’m sincerely hoping someone would point them out to me.

It is not about being pedantic or annoying. It’s about how your words are interpreted.

And, if you’re genuinely not sealioning, a few tips on how to avoid being labelled as one here:

• Mind the context. Always mind the context. It dictates how your words are interpreted. Specially for more politicised topics, like the ongoing conflicts. A neutral statement (like “it doesn’t fit the definition”) will convey different things based on the post, and those things will not be neutral.
• I hate doing this but don’t simply say epistemic statements (X is true / X is false) in a heavily politicised topic without a moral statement. Otherwise people will see a moral statement on it. Not just witch hunters but every bloody body.
• If you’re unsure on what someone else said, don’t say stuff like “I don’t understand”, “I’m confused”, “I’m not sure”. Instead, ask specific questions on what they mean. (Reason: most Lemmy users are former Reddit users, and in Reddit this crap is a red flag for sealioning. And ooooh boy sealioning in Reddit is bread and butter.)
• If there are multiple possible interpretations to what someone else said, and you can’t handle all of them, always pick the most reasonable one.

NOTES:

1. Nobody knows what’s inside someone else’s head, nor we [people in general] should pretend we do.
2. It is not correct, but for the sake of this discussion, the distinction between the IDF committing one or another specific war crime doesn’t matter.
3. Even if you are not a fascist you most likely know where that claim comes from. That’s hypocrisy.