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

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#101

Post by stale2002 »

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]

> using machine guns to kill people who are trying to legally migrate to your country. To make those statements is to wage a weapon of war and to do it online and on TV en masse is a new kind of trolling that is physically dangerous.

Nobody is doing any of this and I am perfectly happy to dismiss such ridiculous claims.

This is not real. This is not physical. Nobody is machine gunning down people at the mexico border.

You you are the one who is engaging in trolling and lies by spreading such a message around.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#102

Post by cmonnow »

pvelagal wrote: post #85
svat wrote: post #75

The tradition of debate in India that this article is about (or dialogue, or dialectic, or whatever you want to call it) is very interesting, and unfortunately not well-known because most of the sources on the topic quickly get into technicalities. Two non-technical (somewhat accessible to the general public) sources I've found are: 1. The book “Religions, Reasons, and Gods” by the late John Clayton has many interest…

Even today, in my language "Telugu" if some one is trolling we call it "vitanda vadam" - i.e. No point in continuing the discussion.

same in Tamil. That's because it's a Sanskrit phrase, and all Indian languages borrow heavily from Sanskrit.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#104

Post by goto11 »

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 is important what people believe because this is what will influence their actions.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#105

Post by goto11 »

hippich wrote: post #92
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.

If no party to the conversation tries to win, but rather discuss it - it should not matter. It doesn't matter what my world view is at one particular moment - I am sure it is faulty in one way or another always. And world view changes all the time. Stepping out from that worldview, especially when there is no one to argue a different point of view, IMHO is beneficial (as long as it is not malicious). And adding some…

It doesn't matter if the discussion is inconsequential anyway, like in a high school debating exercise.

But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#106

Post by t4ko »

This is interesting to read and especially since their understanding of trolling is actually accurate.

"Here, the person who employs vitaṇḍa has no position of one’s own, and does not attempt to defend any thesis. A person may even adopt a viewpoint that is opposed to one's own for the sake of vitaṇḍa."

I think people mostly misuse the word trolling, a troll's final goal is to disrupt and incite reactions often times for the lulz. To me (you may very well disagree) anybody claiming that trolling is used to achieve something is wrong. It may have consequences but if they are intended it's just manipulation of opinions.

I also have my doubt about the motivation given to trolls, I believe they target people that are "weak" to trolling because their propension to react help the troll reach his goal faster. i believe this is a reason why trolling it can quickly become harassment or at least be perceived as such.

I used to like being a troll as a teenager and my first reaction when reading an opinion that looks absurd is to wonder if the author is trolling. This first reaction is slowly shifting to "who does this statement serves" since organisations of all sizes have weaponized internet to spread such opinions.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#107

Post by DanBC »

emmelaich wrote: post #95
DanBC wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Usenet it always seemed to be a fishing metaphor, which is why people talk about taking the bait or spitting the hook. I'd try to find references for this but Google has fucked the search of Usenet archives. There's this, which uses both meanings http://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/troll-faq/ ---begin Defining troll, flames and crossposts ============================================ From the Jargon file ( http:…

> On Usenet it always seemed to be a fishing metaphor, which is why people talk about taking the bait or spitting the hook. This is why I'm certain it started out as 'trawling'. The conversion to 'troll' was a result of misspelling or misunderstanding the spoken word. Or perhaps just standard punning - one who trawls is a troll. "trawling for opinions" is a well-known and still often used phrase.

But trolling is a type of fishing. Trawling uses long nets, trolling uses long lines with hooks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#108

Post by OJFord »

ratmice wrote: post #89
svat wrote: post #75

The tradition of debate in India that this article is about (or dialogue, or dialectic, or whatever you want to call it) is very interesting, and unfortunately not well-known because most of the sources on the topic quickly get into technicalities. Two non-technical (somewhat accessible to the general public) sources I've found are: 1. The book “Religions, Reasons, and Gods” by the late John Clayton has many interest…

I guess a pet peeve of mine, the Di, in Dialectic refers specifically to two-valued logic, resolving to a truth or false. Which at least in the case of Jain philosophy, with 3 basic truth values true, false, and unassertable, so really these traditions are not necessarily dialectic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_seven-valued_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

The prefix is dia-, not di-.

My own pet peeve is people saying the same thing about 'dialogue', which is also 'dia-logue', not 'di-alogue'.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#109

Post by asveikau »

goto11 wrote: post #105
hippich wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no party to the conversation tries to win, but rather discuss it - it should not matter. It doesn't matter what my world view is at one particular moment - I am sure it is faulty in one way or another always. And world view changes all the time. Stepping out from that worldview, especially when there is no one to argue a different point of view, IMHO is beneficial (as long as it is not malicious). And adding some…

It doesn't matter if the discussion is inconsequential anyway, like in a high school debating exercise. But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe.

> But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe

I really don't understand why more people are not getting this.

It can be plenty consequential in the real world, I said from the start of this thread that someone could be arguing a popular opinion that nobody in the room happens to hold.

This happens all the time in silicon valley as an example: a bunch of educated, comparatively wealthy, mostly white men make decisions. Maybe they are not very in touch with the opinions of the vast majority of humans who fall outside that category. What I am advocating for this case is the ability to have empathy for those who are unlike you, step outside your biases and adopt an argument that is not your own. This is a good skill. People are falling over themselves trying to call that lying and universally bad or nearly so.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#110

Post by emmelaich »

DanBC wrote: post #107
emmelaich wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On Usenet it always seemed to be a fishing metaphor, which is why people talk about taking the bait or spitting the hook. This is why I'm certain it started out as 'trawling'. The conversion to 'troll' was a result of misspelling or misunderstanding the spoken word. Or perhaps just standard punning - one who trawls is a troll. "trawling for opinions" is a well-known and still often used phrase.

But trolling is a type of fishing. Trawling uses long nets, trolling uses long lines with hooks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)

Thanks. TIL.

I'd still guess that it comes from the phrase "trawling for opinions" - everyone has heard of that phrase and knows what a "fishing trawler" is.

Post reply on HN