I think the key part is whether it’s being done in good faith or bad faith. Sometimes I ask a stupid question on Lemmy, but because I am honestly curious and not trying to get into a fight, and I usually accept the reply to me and don’t take it as an invite to get into a debate, I think people can tell I’m not sealioning.
If I replied “source?” for your comment right now, I’d be trolling. I almost certainly know that it is a bad idea to discourage sourcing information, and that should not be something I need a cited source for. That would probably be sealioning. Someone asking for a source on a meme I posted is probably genuinely curious and not sealioning.
And as per usual, judging intent can be difficult, especially when people (including me) come into a forum with my own sets of biases, pieces of knowledge I have that I incorrectly assume that everyone else knows, and absence of knowledge that others incorrectly assume everyone else knows. So people who are not sealioning might get mistaken for it just because they want a source on something they do not know that most people do. I see where you are coming from.
And that’s exactly the ambiguity I was trying to get at with my last paragraph.
I’m kind of surprised I got downvoted while contrarian “source?” comments got lots of upvotes. In all honesty, it feels bad. I am not sure how I said anything anywhere near offensive that deserves disapproval, but being contrarian seems a lot more purposely meant to piss off and still meets lots of peoples’ approval.
But even still, I have gone and assumed bad faith or at best, an attempt to be funny and make people laugh through what is still in the end just contrarianism. I do not think it is possible they are genuinely asking for a source because I think we’re making claims based on general observation of the world, things that do not need to be cited, like “the sky is blue” or “things fall when you drop them”. Just look up and see (or trust the wealth of statements talking about the sky’s blueness if you are (color)blind). Perhaps I’m incorrectly assuming bad faith here based off of a trend of seeing contrarianism, and I’m incorrectly extrapolating that trend here. It is very ambiguous. I really do not think I am wrong, but given that we’re literally talking about the difficulty of determining good vs. bad faith engagement it feels a little arrogant to not acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong.