This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.
The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
well i am missing your point i guess
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
sorry
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".[8]
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
This appears to be an issue with accurate reporting. Considerations like this would make the data make a lot more sense.
The problem is the interpretation by those running the study.
I’m not sure I am perfectly following you—what should the authors have said?
I am definitely mistakenly misreading you here, sorry for the inconvenience!
(significantly edited to reflect my intent; also if any others could help me out, i don’t mean to bug this person and annoy them)
just because I had something to add doesn’t mean I missed you point.
well i am missing your point i guess, sorry. could you rephrase what you are saying ? im quite lost
edit: like what is “the problem” involved here? what are the journalists saying that is misleading?
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
i literally don’t know what you are talking about, lol. just asking for clarification because my initial reading was clearly wrong :)
Sealioning
Just asking questions
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).