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

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#111

Post by hippich »

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.

Sorry, I got lost a little in the second part. I assume you mean "a negative influence". How exactly discussing viewpoint, which is not believed by the person, influences the real-world decision in a negative manner, considering that more information is processed, not less?

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#112

Post by goto11 »

hippich wrote: post #111
goto11 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I got lost a little in the second part. I assume you mean "a negative influence". How exactly discussing viewpoint, which is not believed by the person, influences the real-world decision in a negative manner, considering that more information is processed, not less?

Lets say two presidential candidates are having a debate. Does it matter if they actually believe in what they are arguing? Of course it does. Or two prospective parents discussing how to best raise a child? Of course it matters if they actually believe what they say.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#113

Post by WorldMaker »

OJFord wrote: post #108
ratmice wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

The confusion seems rooted in the relatively common word "monologue" which etymology seems to imply was a 17th Century French "back formation". Interesting how much that bit of word play seems to confuse things centuries later.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#114

Post by WorldMaker »

reshie wrote: post #90
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.

it can also be called devils advocate. it can be helpful when you do not have someone to argue that side and good for understanding a issue from many sides and can be in good faith. stating a disclaimer does make things more transparent though and may or may not be good for the sake of the argument. bad faith in this case would be misrepresenting or downplaying the other argument wrongfully to further your own opinio…

Also, it can be useful to remember that if you find yourself playing Devil's Advocate a lot, you should maybe check your pay stubs from the Devil. Even if you don't believe in the arguments that you are making, you still might be persuading others towards those causes. There are things to consider when advocating for opinions you do not personally hold.

Relatedly too, getting called in a lot to play Devil's Advocate by other people for sides/opinions that you do hold and care about can be an indicator that those people do not value your opinion and think you may be in the Devil's employ already. While they may not mean harm by it, it can be important to realize the emotional investment you are putting into the work will not be returned in how it is perceived, you might not be well enough "compensated" for that work, and should maybe renegotiate terms (or stop agreeing to it).

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#115

Post by OJFord »

WorldMaker wrote: post #113
OJFord wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

The confusion seems rooted in the relatively common word "monologue" which etymology seems to imply was a 17th Century French "back formation". Interesting how much that bit of word play seems to confuse things centuries later.

Wiktionary says it's ancient Greek.

Which makes sense, it doesn't need to be a back formation or slight pun - it's already different from dia 'across'/'between' (like diameter) talking, it's specifically not that.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#116

Post by hippich »

goto11 wrote: post #112
hippich wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I got lost a little in the second part. I assume you mean "a negative influence". How exactly discussing viewpoint, which is not believed by the person, influences the real-world decision in a negative manner, considering that more information is processed, not less?

Lets say two presidential candidates are having a debate. Does it matter if they actually believe in what they are arguing? Of course it does. Or two prospective parents discussing how to best raise a child? Of course it matters if they actually believe what they say.

Presidential "debates" to me appears as a PR campaign. I guess there indeed it is important to know exactly what candidates are standing for and proving their view is the right one (i.e. aligned with viewer's worldview)

With parenting - I see no issues. And I do use such an approach, but my spouse, I believe, trusts me.

So... It looks like the problem is - when the debate is used to judge world view of the person to decide if one would like to trust them - such "devil advocate" arguments are harmful. I believe it is just one possible use of the discussion, but I will keep in mind that and try to avoid arguing from some other perspective if I see the person is trying to figure out if they want to trust me or not.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#117

Post by licebmi__at__ »

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 don't see how that disproves my point, I also come from a country with a recent and ongoing history of hardship, just 6 years ago while I was on vacation, a shootout happen in front of my home while my father and I were painting; actual bullet holes were made on the wall we were working on, and yet after we saw the cars flee, my dad just shrug it off and continued painting. Yes, I know that people can be resilient and adapt to life's hardships

And still, social sensitivities can be quite complex. My dad, a man who accepted a rain of bullets as just one more of the life's hardships, can get quite uncomfortable to the point of refusing to eat, if you insist on passing the salt on his hand instead of leaving it on the table near him, and I just picked one of the weirder but he and a lot of people have some petty stuff that causes them great offense.

With the examples I gave on GP, my point was not that people endured hardships, but that people who offended societies sensibilities were harshly punished. If you think that society that got so offended by stuff like blasphemy, sexual preferences, and failing to follow caste systems or even other weird social customs, are more courageous or have a tougher skin, then we have a different definition of courage.

And I say this without making a moral judgement, maybe severe punishment from deviancy served as a societal glue that allowed to thrive despite the material hardships, or perhaps a case can be made on the pathological aspect of having real hardships and still devoting so much time on irrelevant stuff. Still my point is that I don't think people got any less offended than nowdays, and perhaps watching today's punishments on the offenders, maybe that's one indicator where we are getting better.

Post reply on HN