[EDIT reason: clipping and rewording for less verbosity.]

TL;DR: sealioning is about either how or why you convey a discourse, not the discourse itself. Over your whole comment, you're treating it as the later, thus making a fool of yourself and wasting my time.

Your definition of sealioning, that it’s defined by intention [...] these are all non-falsifiable. You realize that right?

No shit Sherlock. Otherwise I wouldn't have myself said that "That’s a problem because nobody knows the others’ intentions - at most we lie that we know."

However, the concept is still useful once you rework it to rely on behaviour (that is observable and falsifiable). And effectively, that's what people should do; alongside weighting out some risk that their claim might be wrong.

mask

I said "farce", not "mask". That said: farces are mostly behaviour, and your point regarding "mask" is secondary and moot.

They contain no mechanism for accepting new information from outside your ideology

That's like complaining against an orange tree for containing no mechanism to squeeze juice.

Sealioning is not the discourse itself being conveyed, but how [if based on behaviour] or why [if based on intentions]; mechanisms regarding acceptance or rejection of new info relate to the later, not to the former.

Regarding "ideology": sealioning is not just used with ideological discourses.

and make your mind starve to death.

You're opposing the concept of sealioning based on its reliance on something non-falsifiable, like "intentions"... and its effect on something equally non-falsifiable, someone's "mind". Congratulations for shooting your own foot.

This overall approach to things — to operate on the basis that all is known and understood

You're babbling yet another assumption. That is false, usage of the concept of sealioning does not imply or require such approach. Stop assuming = making shit up.

All your babble (yup) from the 2nd to 5th paragraphs is built under the assumption that this idiotic statement is true, so I can safely skip to the part where you're talking about science.

Science, by its emphasis on putting empirical observation above theory in terms of trust, allows for external information to update itself. Science is not totalitarian in that sense.

Already addressed: sealioning being how or why a discourse is being conveyed, not the discourse itself.

Side note: let us not pretend (or worse, assume) that falsificationism is not the only scientific method out there.

The term “Sealioning”, by enabling people to decide that any interaction at any time possesses a particular intention (un-observable, non-falsifiable), or that a particular mask is being used (un-observable, non-falsifiable), that they can just ignore the interaction and cast aspersions on the person they’re interacting with.

Besides being a fallacy / irrationality known as "appeal to consequences", this chunk of babble relies on things already contradicted.

From your other comment:

If every time you make a claim, someone pops up and asks you for a source and you can’t provide it, you should stop.

I'm going to require you a source on that. Over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseam. If you can't provide it, follow your own advice and shut up. /s

If you can provide it, don't worry - I'll ask for source on something else, preferably some triviality, and the cycle repeats. Recursively.

Are you getting the picture? Your comment works under the assumption/idiocy that people not sourcing their claims do it because of inability to do so; sealioning exploits the fact that countering bullshit wastes your time and patience, so even if you can rebuke it, you'll eventually give up out of sheer annoyance.

And before you babble "but in syense lol lmao" - even in an academic environment, if you're dragging discussion down by asking questions that you're expected to know the answer of, someone is bound to "politely" tell you to "please inform yourself beforehand on those trivial matters, if you want to engage in this discussion" aka "fuck off".

Here are two hypothetical situations that might clarify your blatant confusion regarding the usage of the word "sealion", and exemplify the usage of behaviour instead of "intentions" to demarcate sealioning.

Situation A:

• [You] Damn, a glass of water after work is great.
• [Alice] You're drinking water. Water is poisonous.
• [You] No, it is not. Stop making stuff up.
• [Alice] Okay, but don't whine afterwards when you get poisoned.
• [Alice leaves]
• [a day passes by]
• [You] I was drinking water yesterday, and it was great.

Situation B:

• [You] Damn, a glass of water after work is great.
• [Bob] You're drinking water. I'll have you know that water is poisonous.
• [You] No, it is not. Stop making stuff up.
• [Bob] Why are you so aggressive? I'm just informing you.
• [You] No, water is not poisonous. Water is safe. It's good for you. Please stop wasting my time.
• [Bob] Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that water is safe?
• [You] I'm busy drinking my water. Can you excuse me?
• [Bob] I shall return later.
• [a day passes by]
• [You] I was drinking water yesterd...
• [Bob] I see that you're mentioning that poisonous substance again. I don't understand, why someone would harm themselves? I'm so confused...
• [You] Bob, fuck off.
• [Bob] Apparently you lack arguments to defend your outrageous claim that water is safe to drink. Such lack of rationality, I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation and inform you on the risks of the substance that you're ingesting.

Even if both Alice and Bob are conveying the same stupid discourse ("water is poisonous"), only one of them is sealioning - Bob. Why?

[Feel free to analyse this through mind/intention/etc. or behaviour. Refer to the sealion comic for reference.]

finally, someone took the time to unpack the lie of sealioning