Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aristotle, “On Trolling”

journals.cambridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#71

Post by _vya7 »

GrinningFool wrote: post #67
sdegutis wrote: post #5

Fwiw, "proper" trolling can be an art form. Done well, it can be a beautiful form of entertainment. Ken M's best (authentic) comments are a great example of this.

So can puns, but that doesn't make them socially acceptable either.

What, like dad jokes?

> I have a fear of speed bumps. Im slowly getting over it.

Dad jokes are one of those things were people shake their heads and sigh, as if they're displeased, but internally they're laughing their butts off.

... Or maybe I only think that because I'm a dad?

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#73

Post by [deleted] »

iopq wrote: post #40
chippy wrote: post #36

I think we, as hackers, are somewhat lucky when identifying trolls. This is because our projects, our work with computers encourages less ambiguity. For example, if a troll enters a thread and asks a question about why a product doesnt support feature X we can give good, rational answers. If they don't get our message and press forward with their ignorance we can dismiss them as troll. We, as hackers, as members of c…

The fact that people still discuss spaces vs. tabs easily disproves your point. Vi vs. emacs? Again, group dynamics in action, and those discussions still end up in thousands of replies.

[deleted]

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#74

Post by Karunamon »

iopq wrote: post #39
blub wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only problem is that "sublime trolling" is something he made up. Tricking apprentices to learn, come on. He's just playing devil's advocate in a not very convincing way.

http://thecodelesscode.com/ almost all of these koans are masters trolling students

Hah! This was my first thought too. The whole purpose of a koan is to, one way or another, subvert (i.e. troll) your normal thought process so some important truth can be learned.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#75

Post by kolbe »

So, it's trolling if you use a Socratic dialogue to peddle falsehoods, but not trolling if you use it to tell truths? Who is the arbitrator of truth?

I think of trolling more as the method of argument, rather than the content. And in this way, Socrates was a troll. It just so happens that not all trolls are bad. They just have a bad label.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#76

Post by mixedCase »

chippy wrote: post #53
iopq wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that people still discuss spaces vs. tabs easily disproves your point. Vi vs. emacs? Again, group dynamics in action, and those discussions still end up in thousands of replies.

>your point I made several points in my comment :-) I imagine you were referring to the first point - that we, as hackers are lucky in our projects and work in that there is often good clarity as to likely questions, but that vi vs emacs means that there is no clarity. I believe that this is not a good example of our work and our close technical projects but rather that you are agreeing with my other points, that it'…

Since 4chan was brought up:

Goons and 8chan's /int/, with both groups having a large overlap between each other.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#77

Post by kazinator »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #62
etherael wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you call that a troll, rather than simple rational enquiry?

Mainly because it invites downvotes, ad hominem attacks and general hostility from other parties. For example, this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11654161 I don't think that rational inquiry and trolling are necessarily disjoint sets.

For that matter, someone, say, championing racial equality in some Neo-Nazi online forum (with rational arguments and all) would be considered a troll.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#78

Post by yummyfajitas »

kazinator wrote: post #77
yummyfajitas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainly because it invites downvotes, ad hominem attacks and general hostility from other parties. For example, this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11654161 I don't think that rational inquiry and trolling are necessarily disjoint sets.

For that matter, someone, say, championing racial equality in some Neo-Nazi online forum (with rational arguments and all) would be considered a troll.

Or a better analogy would be someone asking what principle is used to justify white supremacy might be considered a troll.

Then again, they might not. I've done exactly this (albeit with white supremacist NRX types) and was merely given rational arguments. It was actually quite interesting - I could explicitly pinpoint the place where I disagreed with them [1].

[1] They appealed to "lifeboat ethics", while I believe Singapore and similar multi-ethnic non-democracies provide perfect Moldbuggian counterexample to claims we are in a "lifeboat".

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#79

Post by etherael »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #62
etherael wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you call that a troll, rather than simple rational enquiry?

Mainly because it invites downvotes, ad hominem attacks and general hostility from other parties. For example, this thread from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11654161 I don't think that rational inquiry and trolling are necessarily disjoint sets.

Once again, Isn't that just another way of saying that people do not like being confronted with the fact that their positions are not actually rational at all, rather than that you are "trolling" someone by so confronting them?

I agree that the linked thread is a good example of exactly this phenomenon, and I think it's actually a far more common thing here than people would like to admit.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#80

Post by etherael »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #78
kazinator wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that matter, someone, say, championing racial equality in some Neo-Nazi online forum (with rational arguments and all) would be considered a troll.

Or a better analogy would be someone asking what principle is used to justify white supremacy might be considered a troll. Then again, they might not. I've done exactly this (albeit with white supremacist NRX types) and was merely given rational arguments. It was actually quite interesting - I could explicitly pinpoint the place where I disagreed with them [1]. [1] They appealed to "lifeboat ethics", while I believe…

I would be interested in a link to that discussion if you have it.

Also, is a white supremacist NRX type the type that refuses to politely ignore the research on intelligence levels, the heredity thereof, and the observed differences between various races in order to maintain the widely believed fiction that all men are created equal, or are they the irrational, unquestioning tribal kind that just assume clustering together around racial lines is some kind of natural duty, or something else entirely?

Post reply on HN