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

The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#61

Post by coldtea »

marstomorrow wrote: post #44
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…

[flagged]

>Let me be clear, then. The United States is committing a genocide against minorities as we speak and it is enabled and emboldened by "trolls". This is not touchy-feely.

The United States has committed some soft of genocide or another since the days of the Native Americans. That's not touchy feely.

Crying about this or that opinion being published, or whether a coworker can make or not make a comment, or what group is the more victimized for BS offenses (where usually the crying is made white middle/upper middle class self-appointed spokepersons) is.

And I'm not talking about the "children in cages" either. This is obviously not a kind of "touchy feely" issue.

Plus, the "children in cages" has been going on since forever one way or another. My people were hunted by the KKK back in the 20s and 30s for not being white enough. I've written (in other places) about the Mexican immigrants fueling the California agricultural sector, and how they're exploited and sent away when bosses are done with them (eg. the strawberry picking business).

Even the Wall is nothing new, there has been a wall, beatings, and killings at the border well before Trump. Now it's just fashionable to speak against it (because Trump), whereas under Obama 2 million could be deported and it was OK (and it didn't involve as many children imprisoned, so late night talk shows didn't feel the need to cover it).

Still, I'm not an American myself. But the hypocrisy is strong, as if all those "good souls" care about the "children in cages".

There are "children in cages" all over Europe, in camps for immigrants (where they're not allowed to leave):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/10/life-in-italy-...

>Your ..... dismissal of the problems of youth....and use of .... to not finish...sentences makes it difficult to understand your point.

You could replace "..." with "." in my comment, and nothing would change of its point. Instead you've chose to point an inconsequential stylistic issue, and exaggerate it to death.

Let's make my point even clearer: aside from general economic prospects (college debt and so on), there are no serious "problems of youth" in 2019 in the USA in the white middle/upper middle-class population that cries about being "traumatized" the most. It literally never had been better trauma-wise, today when people cry the most about it, for anything and everything.

And I don't expect you to agree with this assessment. That's my opinion, it's a free universe.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#62

Post by Supermancho »

bittercynic wrote: post #55
chmod775 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Either an assertion is a conventional belief, which is a truth that has no evidence, or a logical conclusion belief, which they don't fully understand (eg lack of understanding about cause and effect in a study). These concepts are often confused, but neither of them are fundamental to a rational discussion.

A lack of acknowledgement when these biases are discovered, is a compelling reason to eject from a discussion. Discussion is one tool to convert beliefs to truths. Sometimes the beliefs changed are ill-recieved, but it your own or another's.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#63

Post by coldtea »

marstomorrow wrote: post #60
coldtea wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 judg…

>This is wildly untrue and outrageously offensive. Do you really think this? What evidence do you have for this?

This is wildly true, and 100% not offensive.

I've talked to such people, I'm in a country with actual historical scars and full of people that went through extreme hardships, I've interviewed dozens of them people, I've read tons of historical accounts, interviews, and so on.

>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

Well, I can be the judge of their pain (it's a free universe), and I can tell you that their pain of "discrimination, hate, and violence caused by trolls" is nothing compared to war, civil war, dictatorship, genocide, torture, and so on (all of which experienced numerous times in the last 100 years in my country).

It's a sad state of affairs that this has to even be spelt out, or that people think someone being called names by online trolls, or harassed at school for being X, or whatever, is as serious and as important as those kinds of events.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#64

Post by marstomorrow »

coldtea wrote: post #61
marstomorrow wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Let me be clear, then. The United States is committing a genocide against minorities as we speak and it is enabled and emboldened by "trolls". This is not touchy-feely. The United States has committed some soft of genocide or another since the days of the Native Americans. That's not touchy feely. Crying about this or that opinion being published, or whether a coworker can make or not make a comment, or what group…

> Crying about this or that opinion being published,

I have absolutely never once in my life seen someone cry over an opinion being published. I have, however, seen hundreds of people complain about others 'crying', or 'literally shaking' but I have never seen it once happen and I have been looking. I honestly think such people do not exist. Can you cite any? This is surely not the cultural phenomenon you make it out to be.

> Plus, the "children in cages" has been going on since forever one way or another.

Something happening in the past does not make it okay to happen today. Are you suggesting that nobody should protest children being put in cages, simply because it has happened before? I don't understand. Since it has happened before, and it's awful, and it's happening again right now, don't you think we should stand up and stay that it should be stopped?

> Even the Wall is nothing new, there has been a wall, beatings, and killings at the border well before Trump.

Again, just because something isn't new doesn't have any bearing on it being bad or not. In fact I think it emphasizes how important these issues are. They persist and we must fight against them fully.

> Now it's just fashionable to speak against it (because Trump), whereas under Obama 2 million could be deported and it was OK (and it didn't involve as many children imprisoned, so late night talk shows didn't feel the need to cover it)

What are you talking about? Putting children in cages, family removals, etc of legal immigrants is completely different from deportations of illegal immigrants.

Are you suggesting nobody should speak out against these atrocities or try to avoid them happening in the first place, simply because they have happened before? I don't get it.

> There are "children in cages" all over Europe, in camps for immigrants (where they're not allowed to leave)

That sounds awful. Everyone should be protesting this everywhere. Everyone should aim to avoid the circumstances that allow this to happen: chief among them is trolling.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#65

Post by marstomorrow »

coldtea wrote: post #63
marstomorrow wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 judg…

> This is wildly untrue and outrageously offensive. Do you really think this? What evidence do you have for this? This is wildly true, and 100% not offensive. I've talked to such people, I'm in a country with actual historical scars and full of people that went through extreme hardships, I've interviewed dozens of them people, I've read tons of historical accounts, interviews, and so on. > Today's youth are experienc…

[flagged]

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#66

Post by coldtea »

marstomorrow wrote: post #64
coldtea wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me be clear, then. The United States is committing a genocide against minorities as we speak and it is enabled and emboldened by "trolls". This is not touchy-feely. The United States has committed some soft of genocide or another since the days of the Native Americans. That's not touchy feely. Crying about this or that opinion being published, or whether a coworker can make or not make a comment, or what group…

> Crying about this or that opinion being published, I have absolutely never once in my life seen someone cry over an opinion being published. I have, however, seen hundreds of people complain about others 'crying', or 'literally shaking' but I have never seen it once happen and I have been looking. I honestly think such people do not exist. Can you cite any? This is surely not the cultural phenomenon you make it out…

>I have absolutely never once in my life seen someone cry over an opinion being published.

Well, I've seen then cry, demand it's unpublished, demand the person writing it is fired, and so on.

>I have, however, seen hundreds of people complain about others 'crying', or 'literally shaking' but I have never seen it once happen and I have been looking.

Well, perhaps not looking unbiased enough.

>Something happening in the past does not make it okay to happen today.

Which I didn't say in the first place. My point is that as an old thing this is not related to the recent touchy-feely behavior I spoke against. (Nor of course are the people kept in cages, or the people who complain about them, are complaining about touchy feely issues).

>Are you suggesting nobody should speak out against these atrocities or try to avoid them happening in the first place, simply because they have happened before? I don't get it.

No, there are two threads here: 1) tons of younger people today complain about touchy feely issues, and 2) most younger people complain about these serious issues only when it becomes fashionable (e.g. now under Trump or previously under Bush, not before under Obama or Clinton).

I argue that (1) the touchy feely issues should be dropped, and (2) the important issues should be complained all the time, not when it's in vogue.

>That sounds awful. Everyone should be protesting this everywhere. Everyone should aim to avoid the circumstances that allow this to happen: chief among them is trolling.

Trolling is nowhere in the list of things that "allow this to happen".

Capitalism, EU immigration policies, hypocrisy, exploitation, and other things are.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#67

Post by marstomorrow »

coldtea wrote: post #66
marstomorrow wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Crying about this or that opinion being published, I have absolutely never once in my life seen someone cry over an opinion being published. I have, however, seen hundreds of people complain about others 'crying', or 'literally shaking' but I have never seen it once happen and I have been looking. I honestly think such people do not exist. Can you cite any? This is surely not the cultural phenomenon you make it out…

> I have absolutely never once in my life seen someone cry over an opinion being published. Well, I've seen then cry, demand it's unpublished, demand the person writing it is fired, and so on. > I have, however, seen hundreds of people complain about others 'crying', or 'literally shaking' but I have never seen it once happen and I have been looking. Well, perhaps not looking unbiased enough. > Something happening in…

[flagged]

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#68

Post by coldtea »

marstomorrow wrote: post #65
coldtea wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is wildly untrue and outrageously offensive. Do you really think this? What evidence do you have for this? This is wildly true, and 100% not offensive. I've talked to such people, I'm in a country with actual historical scars and full of people that went through extreme hardships, I've interviewed dozens of them people, I've read tons of historical accounts, interviews, and so on. > Today's youth are experienc…

[flagged]

>The pain the trolls are creating is directly causing war, discrimination, dictatorship, genocide. And regardless, there is no need to obsess over who "had it worse" or whatever.

Not really.

From the native Americans to Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, the US (and Western Europe and USSR for that matter) did war, genocide, discrimination, segregation, slavery, and so on, very well, on a huge scale, without trolls.

Trolls are absolutely insignificant in causing "war, discrimination, dictatorship, genocide".

If anything, our "troll heavy" days are much better in all of the above terms.

And if you mean the infamous "Kremlin trolls", those are just the fad of the day, to point them blame on someone. The US had and will again do its thing in the middle east for oil, regardless of what some Facebook troll says. And they'll compete and go to trade war with China for their private interests, regardless of what Twitter says.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#69

Post by anigbrowl »

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 should not. The decision to assess a claim in context (eg a speaker's expertise or lack thereof) or in isolation is often an important one, and creating an implicit contextual fork and then attacking an opponent for choosing the 'wrong' prong is a well-worn rhetorical tactic for seizing control of an argument on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#70

Post by menacingly »

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.

I guess that's fine but don't presume the other person is somehow accountable to you for their opinion or values your assessment that they're a liar at all.

I frequently make points to taste test them without being married to them, but I'm not going to lose sleep if someone wants to get worked up over whether or not it was genuine.

Post reply on HN