[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".