They must, by definition. So yes. But for the sake of illustration, let's assume someone who acts like a sea lion isn't arguing in bad faith, but they aren't arguing in good faith either. Whether they and unintentionally annoying, or not, ultimately makes no difference to the people around them.

Let's say a specific oblivious person is combative and persistent. They are not truly trying to understand something, they just want to be right. You try to explain why their responses could be considered rude and prompt self reflection.

A) Will they evaluate themselves and realize what they are doing? B) Will they argue because they insist on being right?

The former is a rude person, but they are someone trying to figure out the world. Whether you engage with them or not, eventually they will realize their actions are causing disengagement. We're all trying to learn and become better versions of ourselves. This person made some mistakes, realizes it, then changes.

There is no point in engaging the latter. Their lack of self awareness is irrelevant to the outcome and your mental state. Leave them alone, and don't respond. If you do respond, and they realize they are wrong, but continue: they become a sea-lion if the fake politeness, and troll if they become inflammatory.

Don't feed the trolls. If they want to, "be right," they can be alone in thinking they're right, and you can get back to learning and bettering yourself.

None of this is in the comic.

No satirical comic literally explains the intent of the comic; intent must be inferred based on the events it depicts. Or you can search the internet, Know Your Meme attempts to track culture and context. Yay for them.

Same goes for Wayland.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point.