The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit • Hacker News Board

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#51

Post by licebmi__at__ » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #40

marstomorrow wrote: post #2

This is very neat, and the last paragraph is indeed very heavy-hitting. It's always hard to read that some of our societies greatest present-day problems are so many thousands of years old. However, I think this definition is narrow and only encapsulates part of the modern definition of 'trolling'. Today, 'trolling' is used as a weapon of war, not only in debate with other individual people. Trolling is as much a mec…

> Trolling is as much a mechanism of creating emotional trauma among a large population as it is a mechanism for 'debating' in bad faith. Perhaps this was not present in older societies (and other countries today) because people were not as touchy feely as the current generations... And I'm not trolling. I seriously think modern western societies are too snow-flakey and touchy feely for their own good. It's like goin…

I say this without snark, but the only way I can imagine someone actually thinks this, is because that someone is not well read on history, or holds values that were more in vogue to be "traumatized" for in such past generations.

People forget that in those older societies, people were killed, jailed and fined for holding certain beliefs. People were literally burnt at the stake, witch hunts were something more serious than a twitter mob complaining, intellectuals wrote lengthy arguments about the immorality of certain views; for christ sake, "Marge & Itchy and Scratchy" is almost 30 years old.

So yeah, I hold the opinion that people who think today's society is more easily offended than past generations are either too disconnected to what past generations really were, or is shocked to find themselves on the receiving end.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#52

Post by Fellshard » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:35 PM UTC

marstomorrow wrote: post #23

asveikau wrote: post #12

I frequently argue points I do not personally hold. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as me holding the opinion, or an attack on the person, or some such. But really I am testing the idea and recognizing that someone else could hold this opinion but not be in the room to advocate for it.

I have come across this in some friends. It's super interesting but also dangerous. It has taken me sometimes years or a decade to fully come to terms with some past debates. My friends would seemingly hold opinions and cling to them dearly, opinions I felt were so unconscionable I could not imagine holding them. Friendships were strained and maybe some lost. They tell me now that they were doing as you do, and that…

For these cases, you have to examine the whole of those friends' character. If that friend repeatedly brings up the same arguments 'just to test or practice', and/or if they reveal the fruits of those arguments in other aspects of their character or thought, you can make the argument to them that you cannot in good faith believe that they are merely holding that position for argument's sake.

However, if they have a known position and they make arguments clearly outside those boundaries, and then /show that they return to their usual position after/, it is much more feasible to believe that they are indeed merely testing their own position thoroughly, as any reasoning person should.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#53

Post by fucking_tragedy » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #28

marstomorrow wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have come across this in some friends. It's super interesting but also dangerous. It has taken me sometimes years or a decade to fully come to terms with some past debates. My friends would seemingly hold opinions and cling to them dearly, opinions I felt were so unconscionable I could not imagine holding them. Friendships were strained and maybe some lost. They tell me now that they were doing as you do, and that…

This is a really interesting point. Trolling, in my opinion, occurs when the opportunity to question narratives is suppressed or forbidden.

Open any unmoderated comments section on any site and you'll find thousands of trolls.

It's strange that you think trolling is some subversive and venerable reaction to censorship, when anonymously commenting on websites is a nearly effortless act that incurs neither a cost nor risk.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#54

Post by ensconced » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

shas3 wrote: post #3

Ancient sanskrit, yes. But the term vitanDa is very current. It is a common word in my language, Kannada and I imagine in other Indian languages as well. This article is as much about the etymology of a modern term as about a concept from Sanskrit philosophical texts.

Telugu too! It's called "vitanDa vaadam"

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#55

Post by bittercynic » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #42

rciorba wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my take on when people do this: Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. Any later claim to the contrary leaves me with the following choice to make: were they lying then, or are they lying now.

Most of the time it doesn't even matter whether that someone actually believes what they say. It should be all the same to you either way.

It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#56

Post by _eht » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

rciorba wrote: post #31

asveikau wrote: post #12

I frequently argue points I do not personally hold. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as me holding the opinion, or an attack on the person, or some such. But really I am testing the idea and recognizing that someone else could hold this opinion but not be in the room to advocate for it.

Here's my take on when people do this: Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. Any later claim to the contrary leaves me with the following choice to make: were they lying then, or are they lying now.

This is good feedback. I default to devils advocate more often than not for some reason and have had to explain myself more than once.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#57

Post by ultrasounder » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

ensconced wrote: post #54

shas3 wrote: post #3

Ancient sanskrit, yes. But the term vitanDa is very current. It is a common word in my language, Kannada and I imagine in other Indian languages as well. This article is as much about the etymology of a modern term as about a concept from Sanskrit philosophical texts.

Telugu too! It's called "vitanDa vaadam"

Which is a direct translation of the same word from Sanskrit which carries the same meaning. Hardly surprising as Telugu is at lest 50% Sanskrit

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#58

Post by monetus » Sun, May 12, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

dvtrn wrote: post #26

marstomorrow wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have come across this in some friends. It's super interesting but also dangerous. It has taken me sometimes years or a decade to fully come to terms with some past debates. My friends would seemingly hold opinions and cling to them dearly, opinions I felt were so unconscionable I could not imagine holding them. Friendships were strained and maybe some lost. They tell me now that they were doing as you do, and that…

If you are to take stances that you don't agree with, please check them logically first before putting those arguments out there in the world. You know, some could make the argument that in order to satisfy the second demand of your sentence here, one has to indulge in the first. I don't know if I would, but maybe that's the point ;)

The irony in this made me chuckle, thanks for that.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#59

Post by coldtea » Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #51

coldtea wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trolling is as much a mechanism of creating emotional trauma among a large population as it is a mechanism for 'debating' in bad faith. Perhaps this was not present in older societies (and other countries today) because people were not as touchy feely as the current generations... And I'm not trolling. I seriously think modern western societies are too snow-flakey and touchy feely for their own good. It's like goin…

I say this without snark, but the only way I can imagine someone actually thinks this, is because that someone is not well read on history, or holds values that were more in vogue to be "traumatized" for in such past generations. People forget that in those older societies, people were killed, jailed and fined for holding certain beliefs. People were literally burnt at the stake, witch hunts were something more serio…

We had dictatorships, civil wars, and other such things in my country not that long ago.

I have relatives who went through those things -- and other modern tragedies today. I have befriended, talked to, and interviewed people jailed and tortured for decades for their beliefs. Even family killed by previous regimes.

So, it's not like I don't know that people "were killed, jailed and fined for holding certain beliefs".

I do know however that people that had those things happen to them in real-time history and in their full horror, were much more resilient, courageous, and could even shrug them off.

The touchy feely, safe-space demanding people today, who get discouraged or hysterical for 1/1000th the offense done to them, are a regression and an insult to those people (whose actual sacrifices and efforts gave the rights to the snowflakes of today).

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#60

Post by marstomorrow » Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #59

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this without snark, but the only way I can imagine someone actually thinks this, is because that someone is not well read on history, or holds values that were more in vogue to be "traumatized" for in such past generations. People forget that in those older societies, people were killed, jailed and fined for holding certain beliefs. People were literally burnt at the stake, witch hunts were something more serio…

We had dictatorships, civil wars, and other such things in my country not that long ago. I have relatives who went through those things -- and other modern tragedies today. I have befriended, talked to, and interviewed people jailed and tortured for decades for their beliefs. Even family killed by previous regimes. So, it's not like I don't know that people "were killed, jailed and fined for holding certain beliefs".…

> I do know however that people that had those things happen to them in real-time history and in their full horror, were much more resilient, courageous, and could even shrug them off.

This is wildly untrue and outrageously offensive. Do you really think this? What evidence do you have for this? Today's youth are experiencing their own valid forms of discrimination, hate and violence fed by trolls and you are no judge of their pain. And why are you doing this whataboutism with the past anyway? What do you have to gain from saying lambasting those who suffer and whom with you share so little you can surely hardly understand their circumstance?

> The touchy feely, safe-space demanding people today, who get discouraged or hysterical for 1/1000th the offense done to them,

Who are these people? Do they really exist? I think you have made up, invented an enemy towards which you are directing these statements.

> are a regression and an insult to those people (whose actual sacrifices and efforts gave the rights to the snowflakes of today).

How on earth? Everyone I know today who cares to improve society is trying to avoid the atrocities of the past. Positing that reasonable discourse, backed by facts and logic, with an avoidance of 'trolling' and bad-faith acting, is a direct attempt to reduce the suffering and pain of the future so that we can avoid such horrible things from the past from happening again.

Your callous dismissal of today's youth looking to improve the world by reducing the spread of hatred and violence is exactly the kind of thing that enabled such horrid violence in the past.

We can see history rhyming. We can see the genocides being committed around the world, fed and enabled by trolls, and we are trying to stop it from happening. We are trying to slow down the intentional suffering hoist upon minorities today by reducing the online vitriol and hatred that creates such physical horror.