Why Sealioning Is Bad

Chances are you've seen this comic by David Malki if you frequent Twitter at all these days. It even coined a new verb - "sealioning" - to describe the act of jumping into a discussion with demands for evidence and answers to questions.
But why is it an awful thing to do? Why do people react so negatively to a request for evidence? Surely a reasoned, rational person would acquiesce to such a statement!
Well, no. And here's why.

Sunk Time

The biggest reason why people hate sealioning is because responding to it is a complete waste of time.
It's an insidious trap. Responding to questions asked reasonably is, of course, a natural thing for people to do. I like to do it myself; educating others is generally pretty entertaining, especially if they are receptive to learning. Dismissing those questions can appear condescending or rude, especially if you actually are condescending or rude.
Of course, these questions are not asked because the person genuinely wants to know. If they did, they would do their own digging based on your statements, and only ask for obscure or difficult-to-discover information. This is the "debate principle"; when you go to a debate, you educate yourself on the topics at hand, and only request evidence when a claim is either quite outlandish or unflinchingly obscure.
No, these questions are asked to make you waste your time. It works, too; I've responded to sealions before, answering all their questions and claims for evidence, only to be greeted by even more willful ignorance. It's a way to force you into responding to questions phrased neutrally but asked in bad faith.

Asking in Bad Faith

So what does asking in bad faith mean?
When you ask a question in bad faith, you are essentially looking for a way to demean, degrade, or otherwise destroy your target. A good example of an obviously bad faith question is the perennial favorite "When did you stop beating your wife?" as it instantly casts doubt upon the person asked the question.
However, it's easy to ask a question in bad faith using reasoned, good faith practices. Neutral phrasing does not always guarantee a question is asked in good faith. This is extremely obvious in documented sealioning; the target responds, only for the questioner to immediately grill them for more information, misinterpret the answer, or dismiss it entirely.
The purpose of sealioning never to actually learn or become more informed. The purpose is to interrogate. Much like actual interrogators, sealioners bombard the target with question after question, digging and digging until the target either says something stupid or is so pissed off that they react in the extreme.

Load The Question Cannons

All of this, of course, relies on asking a lot of questions, often with little-to-no downtime between volleys.
When the target is continually asked questions - especially the same question under a different phrasing, which is very common when sealioning - it's rattling. They have to fight the natural instinct to respond in good faith to neutrally-phrased questions, as answering them will only bring more. It's a forced violation of the empathy that a compassionate person feels towards others, as it pushes them into noticing that their questioners are not particularly interested in the questions themselves.
Compound this with being sealioned but multiple people, as is common on Twitter, and you've got a recipe for a very frustrating and fruitless timeline. If you respond, you are bombarded with even more questions by people who aren't asking to actually be convinced. If you do not respond, you are insulted as somebody who doesn't wish to participate in reasoned discourse, despite the clear and simple fact that such a discourse is not reasonable; it merely has the appearance of rationality.

Lose/Lose

Being sealioned is a lose/lose situation, unfortunately. Much like Global Thermonuclear War, the only winning move is not to play. In this case, block or dismiss sealioners and go about your normal business, letting them vent their frustrations out where you can't see them. It's much healthier for your psyche.
It's unfortunate that we must be suspicious of purportedly honest and neutral questions. Asking questions and being open is key to establishing dialogue and understanding one another. When you are the target of a sealion brigade, though, the purpose is to get you to waste your time responding to every little complaint, and falsely-amiable questions are the easiest way to get you to waste it.
So don't. Spend it doing more constructive activities, like making a game, talking to others genuinely interested in dialogue, or any form of self-care. You owe nothing - especially not answers - to a mob whose intent is to harass you.
If you wish to support my writing on games, please consider donating on Patreon.
We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Avatar
Join the discussion…

  • in this conversation
⬇ Drag and drop your images here to upload them.
        Media preview placeholder
        Sign in with
        or register with Disqus
        ?

        Disqus is a conversation network

        • Disqus never moderates or censors. The rules on this community are its own.
        • Your email is safe with us. It's only used for moderation and optional notifications.
        • Don't be a jerk or do anything illegal. Everything is easier that way.
        Be the first to comment.
        • Shjade 2 months ago
          By far the most frustrating thing about this phenomenon, at least for me, is how it makes innocent people seem dubious.
          I've been muted by at least one person and nearly blocked by a couple of others for asking what I thought was an innocuous question without realizing the person I'd asked it of had been getting their feed spammed up for the last couple of hours about it. People get gun shy after a while and just assume anyone who seems to be "just asking a question" is yet another sea lion piling on. x.x
            see more
            • Artor > Shjade 15 days ago
              Yet another reason to be pissed off at the sea lions. They're poisoning the well for the honest questioners.
                see more
                • CB > Artor 15 days ago
                  Is sealioning merely asking loaded questions?
                  ...because I find interrogation to be a very useful way to combat endlessly-repeated propaganda, whether it be "global warming is a hoax" or "God hates X".
                    see more
                    • Kootiepatra > CB 15 days ago
                      I think asking loaded questions, when the speaker did not invite a discussion, is sea lioning. It's like in the comic: the woman mentions disliking sea lions, and so a sea lion appears out of nowhere to ask her to defend her position. She was stating her opinion, not setting up a debate, so she is (justifiably) annoyed when she is challenged on it and has no way to make the conversation stop.
                      You can be right and still be a sea lion. If the speaker is not asking for a debate, bringing a debate to them will almost never be welcome, or successful. It's much better to write a full, detailed rebuttal on your own platform--you can even invite the original author to come check it out, if they're interested (just know they're probably not)--but intruding into their space with loaded questions is pretty much textbook sea lion behavior.
                      If you're in a debate with someone who wants to be in a debate, then fair game.
                        see more
                        • Shjade > Kootiepatra 14 days ago
                          This is part of it, but there's usually also a bad faith component: you're not just asking loaded questions, you're asking questions with no interest in the actual answers.
                          This is quite apparent when, for instance, the "sea lion" in question responds to any response - an answer to their question, supporting evidence, whatever - by asking more (often only tangentially related) questions, rather than, for instance, take some time to actually consider the answer they just received or do some research on their own.
                            see more
                            • CB > Kootiepatra 13 days ago
                              Sea lion racism aside, I think there's a difference between a personal expression of opinion or emotion like "I don't like sea lions" and a contradiction of empirical fact like "there's been no global warming in the last 18 years".
                              ...and I don't think a public forum is the OP's "space" in either case, though I would be much less interested in interrogating someone about her personal emotions.
                              If someone doesn't like sea lions... or Black people... so what? Goodie for her.
                              On the other hand, interrogating someone spreading dishonest propaganda is a very good way to shame her into stopping.
                              Maybe you are assuming the OP is an honest person, which I suppose is a good way to approach the situation, but which I find frequently turns out not to be the case...
                                see more
                                • Kootiepatra > CB 11 days ago
                                  If it's a truly public forum (topic-neutral and OP doesn't run/moderate it), then sure, you have the right to say whatever you want there, but that doesn't prevent either you or them from looking like a tiresome jerk in the process. It also does not oblige them to listen to you or respond.
                                  If, say, it's on a public climate change discussion board, and OP is intruding into it with their "no global warming" schtick, then they are the sea lion. How you respond to them is largely up to the comment policy/TOS of that space.
                                  If it's on your own blog, Facebook profile, or they are tagging you in Twitter, then they are again the sea lion, and you can mute/ban/block or debate as you please. Fair game. They started it.
                                  If it's on their own blog, Facebook profile, or Twitter stream, then you are the sea lion. No matter how wrong they were. No matter how many other people are listening to them being wrong. It's their space, their account, their business. You aren't entitled to be part of the discussion there.
                                  If it's a conversation you overhear in a public space (meatspace or cyberspace), and you jump in uninvited, and stay put if unwelcome, you are again the sea lion.
                                  If you follow their profile specifically to argue with them and/or pepper them with loaded questions, you are a stalky sea lion.
                                  If OP has an established opinion already, whether they are a dishonest troll, a sincerely deluded whacko, or whatever, the chances that you can sway them are very tiny. The chances that you can convince their friends and followers are also tiny, and the more sealiony your behavior is, the tinier those chances get.
                                  There are vast realms of the internet where you can express your disagreement on your own terms and load up whatever kind of questions you like. You could even invite OP to have a look at it and engage with you there. But in their little corner of the internet, they always have a right to tell you to buzz off, and you never look cool if you refuse.
                                    see more
                                    • CB > Kootiepatra 10 days ago
                                      "If it's on your own blog, Facebook profile, or they are tagging you in Twitter, then they are again the sea lion, and you can mute/ban/block or debate as you please."
                                      Of course, the owner of a blog or media outlet should have the ability to censor people, but I don't think that ability should be taken lightly.
                                      Most people realise that censorship is a very good indication the source is not telling the truth, as censorial outlets like American Spectator, American Thinker, Gateway Pundit and Newsbusters prove.
                                      If you have to censor someone asking questions, chances are you're lying, even if the questions are loaded... Questioning almost always benefits the person telling the truth.
                                        see more
                                        • Tegiminis Mod > CB 10 days ago
                                          That's not entirely true. I've deleted dozens of comments on this article because they were inappropriate, loaded, or otherwise sealioning.
                                          It's called moderation. Sometimes you have to remove opinions and comments to ensure the atmosphere remains accessible, friendly, and conducive to discussion. It's not pretty, but sometimes you do have to make that choice to ensure quality debate.
                                            see more
                                          • Kootiepatra > CB 10 days ago
                                            But questions are not inherently neutral and enlightening. They're as malleable as any other aspect of speech, and can be used to serve any end the speaker desires.
                                            It's true that questions can be sincere pursuits of answers, or healthy demonstrations of critical thinking and skepticism. But questions can just as easily be used by manipulators, liars, and otherwise weaselly human beings to deflect criticism, intentionally confuse and exhaust their target, or to cover their own backsides. They can be used by abusive bullies to insult and intimidate their target. They can be used by obnoxious trolls to dredge up debates that have been covered a hundred times over, or to demand proof for fundamentally unprovable things, or to frustrate the content creator just for teh lulz.
                                            Censorship != making someone get off your virtual lawn. Especially not when there are numerous other immediate, free, open, easily accessible ways for that person to voice the exact same opinions.
                                              see more
                                              • CB > Kootiepatra 4 days ago
                                                "questions can just as easily be used by manipulators, liars, and otherwise weaselly human beings to deflect criticism, intentionally confuse and exhaust their target, or to cover their own backsides"
                                                Not true!
                                                ...because the person telling the truth can always answer a question, and the person telling the lie cannot.
                                                People do notice when someone barges in with a bunch of questions and then refuses to answer any directed back at her, you know.
                                                It's actually a very good way to tell when someone's lying.
                                                  see more
                                        • Shjade > CB 14 days ago
                                          "Interrogation" is a hostile technique - a manner of asking questions from someone you know doesn't want to answer you - so you shouldn't be surprised if this isn't well-received by people who don't know you and didn't invite you to grill them.
                                            see more
                                            • CB > Shjade 13 days ago
                                              Lol!
                                              Anyone expressing her opinion in public is inviting other people to grill her.
                                              If someone doesn't want to explain her opinion, she probably shouldn't have shared it in the first place...
                                              Personally, I focus more on opinions that are demonstrably false, so perhaps that's why "interrogation" was the first word that sprang to mind, but I also ask questions of people whom I don't understand or whose opinions I actually value as well.
                                                see more
                                                • Shjade > CB 10 days ago
                                                  Sorry, but no, that's flatly untrue. As Kootie pointed out, there are any number of situations where a person might express themselves in public and yet, in so doing, not be inviting Random Person Off The Street (that would be you) to jump on them for it.
                                                  If I'm talking with some friends at the bar and say, for instance, Ohio State's football team clearly has no chance this year, they're probably going to disagree with me (for obvious reasons), and that's cool - we're talking to each other about whatever, I'm expecting them to bring up their own thoughts on the subject.
                                                  If, however, you, random person sitting behind me at the bar, turn around to let me know that I need to defend that statement about Ohio State to your satisfaction, I will
                                                  1) give you a raised eyebrow look
                                                  2) laugh at you
                                                  3) resume talking to my friends as if you don't exist
                                                  Why?
                                                  Because what you think about what I just said is not only irrelevant, I don't know you and I could not care less what you feel about what I'm saying to my friends, no matter where we are or how strongly you feel about what you heard.
                                                  You have no right to jeopardize my time to satisfy your sense of what's right and wrong.
                                                  If you were to insist I pay attention to you by getting in my face about it until I justify my comments to your satisfaction, guess what? You're going to be introduced to the bouncer and politely escorted outside for making a scene if you won't behave yourself. (And they won't care how wrong my opinion on SportsBall is, either.)
                                                  tl;dr - Refusing to deal with self-righteous prats says nothing about the veracity of my statements and everything about said prats' behavior.
                                                    see more
                                                    • CB > Shjade 4 days ago
                                                      "Sorry, but no, that's flatly untrue"
                                                      lol! You think liars should be treated with silent respect and their lies should go unchallenged?
                                                        see more
                                                        • Shjade > CB 4 days ago
                                                          Blanket statements are rarely useful.
                                                          Liars should be treated differently depending what they're lying about, to whom, in what context, etc.
                                                          However, that's not what you're actually asking, since much of what is being "challenged" isn't lies but, in fact, differences of opinion. In many cases even that's a charitable description; some folks enacting this kind of behavior are attacking people for telling the truth because they, the "challengers," would rather spread lies beneficial to themselves on the topic.
                                                          But let's say I take your question at face value. Let's say you're genuinely talking about revealing a liar's untruths to their foolish audience. You know how you can do that?
                                                          Post the evidence you have proving they're lying. Done.
                                                          No need to harangue them with your nonsensical attempt at an inquisition. No ongoing harassment insisting they devote their time and attention to every single person who wants to repeat the same accusations as the ten or fifty or a hundred before them. Note your disagreement, post your evidence, and move on.
                                                          No "interrogation" called for or required.
                                                          Hint: if you don't HAVE solid evidence so clear it will stand on its own merits without trying to trap someone via an onslaught of questions, chances are your position isn't really as strong as you claim it is.
                                                            see more
                                                            • CB > Shjade 2 days ago
                                                              "that's not what you're actually asking, since much of what is being "challenged" isn't lies but, in fact, differences of opinion."
                                                              Actually, that is what I'm asking, because in the statement you responded to I quite specifically referred to matters of empirical fact, not opinion.
                                                              If someone is saying something demonstrably false, say, "there has been no global warming in the last 18 years", is that something people should be compelled to ignore?
                                                              Is asking a person like that where she's getting her information even sealioning?
                                                              ...the cartoon would suggest not.
                                                                see more
                                                        • Kootiepatra > CB 11 days ago
                                                          Someone expressing their opinions in public is simply expressing their opinions in pubic. It is not an invitation to anything. Speaking one's mind is not a contract to put up with any and every yahoo who swings by for a fight.
                                                          "Doesn't want to explain [their] opinion" is not equivalent to "Doesn't want to deal with a sea lion, whose questions are transparently code for 'I think you're wrong and want to make you look stupid'".
                                                          Asking sincere questions for the purpose of understanding, intending to accept their answer = not interrogation = not sealioning.
                                                          Grilling someone with loaded questions in an effort to shame them into silence = sealioning = a pretty crappy way to treat people.
                                                            see more
                                                            • CB > Kootiepatra 10 days ago
                                                              "Someone expressing their opinions in public is simply expressing their opinions in pubic. It is not an invitation to anything."
                                                              If they're lying, it most certainly is... and in fact, I would say not challenging such a liar is immoral.
                                                              A loaded question is a question which assumes something not in evidence. It's a fair enough request to ask a person to provide that evidence if it hasn't been provided, and if they can't or won't, I don't see how the conversation continues from there.
                                                              At that point, it's clear that the sea lion is not someone who is interested in an honest conversation and if they continue badgering without providing the evidence requested, I'd say they are fair game for a block.
                                                                see more
                                                      • Kevin Alexander > Shjade 15 days ago
                                                        When I first got on the internet I was unaware of the phenomenon and was so completely unprepared for the hostile reactions to some questions I asked that I quit logging on for a while. I thought the internet was full of intolerant assholes.
                                                          see more
                                                        • Isaac Rabinovitch > Shjade 13 days ago
                                                          Good point. Next time I find myself in that spot I must remember to say, "really want to know, not sealioining.
                                                            see more
                                                          • Larry Felton Johnson 2 months ago
                                                            This article is a really good summary of sea lioning. While the phrase is a new way to describe it, the practice has been around since the usenet days.
                                                            During the peak of the "Tea Party" I was frequently asked "Why are you opposed to balancing the budget and reducing spending?" At first I tried to answer the question they pretended to be asking in good faith, and my answer would be ignored, and would be followed by "Why do you oppose the Constitution?" I could probably find an example coming from the Left as well, but the Birthers and the Tea Partiers generated so many stereotypical examples of the practice that those examples stuck with me.
                                                            Another great sea lioning tactic is to demand that some article the sea lion has read be proven false. In addition to being a waste of time, no argument you put forward would escape the squishy diversionary response from the Sea Lion.
                                                            Ultimately, the best response is the one you've proposed. Ignore the sea lioning and go write a game (or in my case, an article or story).
                                                              see more
                                                              • Kinjiro a month ago
                                                                The combo of gaslighting (intentionally framing a discussion in a way that undermines your target), sealioning, mobbing, and abuse makes for an incredibly powerful weapon. If you or someone you know is being attacked this way, it's very easy to feel isolated and alone. Reach out to your friends and allies for support, mute the attackers, and report their behavior. If this is happening to you, you ARE being attacked, but you don't have to fight on your opponents terms.This style of attack relies on your willingness to accept a role in the conversation that puts you at a disadvantage, and responding in the heat of the moment plays into that dynamic. Saying "It's just words on the Internet" ignores the intent of the attackers - causing pain and distress.
                                                                  see more
                                                                  • Kit Leighton 2 months ago
                                                                    Well-written article, and very good advice.
                                                                      see more
                                                                    • metroid_fetish 14 days ago
                                                                      What's sealioning?
                                                                        see more
                                                                      • theshipoftheseus 15 days ago
                                                                        I think a good companion to this piece would be an article on how to recognize sealioning, and how to distinguish it from real questions, as well as how to avoid being perceived as a sealion yourself.
                                                                        There are plenty of times when questions really do need to be asked. I think it is a bad precedent to assume that when your interlocutor is asking questions, they are actually attacking you. I absolutely agree that this is a thing, I would just hate to get to a point where any use of questions brings on accusations of sealioning. This being the internet, I don't know how to avoid that eventuality.
                                                                          see more
                                                                          • Kootiepatra > theshipoftheseus 15 days ago
                                                                            Sea lion or no, any author on the internet has the right to engage with or ignore any and all feedback they get. They can string trolls along for fun if they like, and they can ignore sincere, polite commenters if they like. Particularly when it's their space (their own blog, Facebook, Twitter feed, etc. etc.), they are 100% in charge of what content they have to deal with, and have the right to be as arbitrary as they like, even if they are missing out on a good conversation by doing so. So "How to recognize a sincere question" is kind of a moot point.
                                                                            "How to avoid being perceived as a sea lion" is not something you can really control, but "How to avoid being a sea lion" is a great thing to think about. And really, I think it boils down to reading the above article and noting to self: Don't do those things.
                                                                            In general, I think the super-condensed version is: Don't try to have a debate with someone who is not interested in debating. Even if they are super wrong. Even if you can demonstrate their wrongness in a few incisive tweets.
                                                                            If you sincerely want clarification, because you don't understand, you can try asking an open question that is not asking them to defend or justify themselves. i.e. "Enjoyed the article! Could you explain more about X?"
                                                                            If you already know that you think they are wrong, it is much, much better to write your own rebuttal on your own platform. You can invite them to come have a look if they want (they probably won't). But they have the right at any point to disengage/tell you to shove off/block you, and the only non-sea-liony thing to do is to respect that and back off.
                                                                              see more
                                                                              • Jimbaux! > Kootiepatra 11 days ago
                                                                                "In general, I think the super-condensed version is: Don't try to have a debate with someone who is not interested in debating."
                                                                                -- Well, really? How would any progress have been made over the last century if people did not debate people who were not interested in debate? Do you think that segregationists, anti-woman-suffragists, and anti-gay people - back when being gay was a crime - were interested in debate? Methinks not!
                                                                                  see more
                                                                                  • Kootiepatra > Jimbaux! 11 days ago
                                                                                    Yes, really.
                                                                                    On these issues, there was always plenty of opportunity to debate with people who were actually willing to debate. Of course, many of those people were not debating in good faith--they were basically gloating about how superior their own point was, without really listening to anyone else, and pulling all kinds of logical fallacies and dirty tricks. But they jumped into the argument with both feet, and were therefore totally fair game (including pointing out their horrendous debate tactics).
                                                                                    But aside from actual debates, there are countless ways to get one's voice out there. Suffragettes, civil rights activists, and LGBT advocates have marched, spoken from soap boxes, gone on hunger strikes, circulated pamphlets, written blogs, published books, sent petitions to government officials, issued boycotts, produced ad copy, held conferences, hosted community outreach programs, and more.
                                                                                    As I said in my post above, if you have a specific person or work you want to respond to and refute, you have full freedom to do it, whether or not they have invited discussion. But you do it on your platform, not theirs. Use your own influence. Rally your own followers. Buy ads if you want to. Start a podcast. Knock yourself out. Sealioning only becomes an issue if you insist on shoving the argument into the other person's space.
                                                                                    You don't get to knock on someone's door and demand that they talk to you; you don't get to park in someone's comment section and demand that they refute your points. If you won't stop following and talking to someone on the street, even when they say, "Leave me alone, I'm not interested," they have full rights to get the police to restrain you; if you hound someone across the internet, despite their refusal to engage with you, they have full rights to block/ignore/ban you.
                                                                                    And on a purely practical level, debating with someone almost never changes their mind, even if they want to participate---much less so if they have already expressed complete disinterest in talking to you. It's much more pragmatic to take your talking points elsewhere and find people who are willing to give your perspective a fair shake.
                                                                                      see more
                                                                                • SgtKonus a month ago
                                                                                  Great article! I see this all the time on Twitter and I simply did not have a word for it.
                                                                                    see more
                                                                                    • JustPlainSomething 11 days ago
                                                                                      This is especially frustrating when female feminists are targeted because women are conditioned to be accommodating, especially in discussions, and sealions use that to their advantage.
                                                                                        see more
                                                                                        • devans00 13 days ago
                                                                                          Thanks, I needed the in depth definition. I didn't quite get the concept from the comic.
                                                                                            see more
                                                                                            • Jimbaux! 14 days ago
                                                                                              Well, I wish that you would have given us a few more examples. So, I'll ask if you thin that the following examples constitute sealioning and what should or should not be done about them.
                                                                                              I'm against the whole "War On Drugs" because it is an assault on personal liberty and because I simply don't see a justification for imprisoning someone for personal choices. As a result, I frequently argue online with prohibitionists. I simply ask them why should someone who does drugs go to jail.
                                                                                              These conversations almost always happen on a public forum, meaning that even if I don't successfully get the claimant to openly question his own assumptions, there are probably other
                                                                                              prohibitionists closer to the fence on the issue who are more inclined to realize that they don't have a justification for prohibition. I also think that the "target" himself may slowly question his own assumptions, even if it happens long after the specific discussion between the two of us stops and even if I never know about it.
                                                                                              Does this count as sealioning? And I wonder how much of your answer depends on the issue that I used as example! I do this same thing when people argue that same-sex marriage should be prevented. I should maybe mention that I was at one time a prohibitionist about both issues! So, that's why I have faith that some of this stuff might work.
                                                                                                see more
                                                                                              • JWH 14 days ago
                                                                                                Seems to me that asking questions is a valid debate tactic when used to demonstrate the faulty logic, assumptions, or evidence underlying your opponent's position.
                                                                                                  see more
                                                                                                  • KSonyka > JWH 14 days ago
                                                                                                    Very true, rhetorical questions can be a great way to challenge an invalid statement. But I think a big part of the point here is that debate is an interactive two-person party. If the other person isn't interested in debating, at some point (eg: “go away”) you're just badgering them.
                                                                                                    It can be a fine line. That said, real-life sealioning tends to be firmly on the wrong side of it. To me the giveaway is when the “requested” backup is easily available, but there they are barking at random commenter. If they really wanted to know, they'd look it up. If they already know, they should just say it! Post the proof and be done.
                                                                                                    Bottom line, seeking the truth and seeking to prove someone wrong/publicly humiliate them are not the same thing.
                                                                                                      see more
                                                                                                    Nothing for you here ... yet. But as you comment with Disqus and follow other Disqus users, you will start to receive notifications here, as well as a personalized feed of activity by you and the people you follow. So get out there and participate in some discussions!
                                                                                                    Disqus helps you find new and interesting content, discussions and products. Some sponsors and ecommerce sites may pay us for these recommendations and links. Learn more or give us feedback.

                                                                                                    Also on Simplikation.com

                                                                                                    0%
                                                                                                    10%
                                                                                                    20%
                                                                                                    30%
                                                                                                    40%
                                                                                                    50%
                                                                                                    60%
                                                                                                    70%
                                                                                                    80%
                                                                                                    90%
                                                                                                    100%