When someone repeats an argument that has been proven false /badly argued many times before, but keeps repeating it in hopes of drowning out opposition or derailing a thread. Yet not disruptive enough to get banned on forums, as it wraps itself in non-hostile, nicely written sentences.
How exactly do moderators deal with this kind of behaviour?
it’s called arguing in bad faith, or more specifically argument ad nauseum
I don’t know what you’re describing is called, but since the world is measured flat and I, for one, didn’t evolve from monkeys, your point is moot. Respectfully.
Well… it might surprise you, considering the context of your comment but you are partly correct: Humans did in fact not evolve from Monkeys.
Tap for spoiler
monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
I thank you for your polite, informative comment. However, I still didn’t evolve from any monkey. Maybe you and your Glober friends did, but not me. Good luck in your endeavors!
I can feel a hint of the confused anger I would have felt if this was real. Good job.
sealioning ?
This one I’ve always been wary of. I studied philosophy so I know a bit about arguments and sealioning is unusual because it can only really take place over the internet where someone is asking questions in bad faith and you can’t 100% call them out because you don’t know their identity for sure. Firstly I don’t like the idea that questions can be bad faith - especially seemingly trivial or obvious ones - since that goes against the Socratic method of questioning all your beliefs/shibboleths. Secondly, it is so context dependent that I think it is hard to universalise it like you can do with other fallacies like false dilemma (everyone is either a tequila or a whisky person, etc.)
Actually it’s quite funny, if you take a broad interpretation of sealioning that does not involve the internet, Ancient Athens sentenced Socrates to death for “sealioning” in 400BC lol.
Well, sealions do go barefoot, even in winter.
