Live data from Hacker News

The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#41
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could also be considered gaslighting, or just plain old attention seeking behavior.

There’s certainly a fine line between playing devil’s advocate to measure the strength of an argument and “trolling”, much like, as an example, there is a fine line between hunting an animal for sustenance and hunting an animal for sport.

I completely agree, generally when I play devil's advocate, I preface it with: "Playing devils advocate, how would you respond to this counter point". The fine line is whether or not the other participants in the conversation are aware of your intent to play devil's advocate. If you are the only one who knows you are playing devil's advocate, your intent might be misconstrued. And if they never find out you were playing devils advocate, then well...

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#42
post #31

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.

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.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#43

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…

My own experience with this tends to arise out of an extreme cognitive dissonance - I want my opinions to be internally consistent, and I've come to realize that a few of them just aren't consistent. When you get into reading the philosophy (or the relevant literature in other cases) you can come to conclusions which are quite far removed from beliefs one holds dear. So there's some tension between what I'd like to b…

The trouble with entirely self consistent philosophically positions is they have tended towards extremism. At least according to my reading of the history of philosophy.

As with science, we have to accept that we can simultaneously hold two theories to be "true" even when they don't square with each other. To do otherwise is an exercise in frustration. Or extremism, if you choose to discard all philosophies that do not fit with your preferred one.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#44
post #40

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…

[flagged]

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#45
post #40

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…

The argument here is "I shouldn't avoid emotionally traumatizing you because at some point, someone else in the future may emotionally traumatize you".

Perhaps there's a case to be made for exposing people to controversial or offensive ideas in a controlled environment to prepare for encountering them in an uncontrolled environment - in fact, this is frequently called a "safe space" and ridiculed by people who believe that modern societies are too "snow-flakey"!

But that's certainly not what internet trolls are doing.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does vitanDa mean in Kannada? Google hasn't been much help.

In Telugu, I use vitanda vadam to mean something closer to a rhetorical fallacy than deliberate dishonesty.

In Tamil it means speech that leads no where. In the sense of debating but not useful.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#47
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s certainly a fine line between playing devil’s advocate to measure the strength of an argument and “trolling”, much like, as an example, there is a fine line between hunting an animal for sustenance and hunting an animal for sport.

I completely agree, generally when I play devil's advocate, I preface it with: "Playing devils advocate, how would you respond to this counter point". The fine line is whether or not the other participants in the conversation are aware of your intent to play devil's advocate. If you are the only one who knows you are playing devil's advocate, your intent might be misconstrued. And if they never find out you were play…

If someone else might hold that view legitimately and it stands on reasonable logic by itself, does it matter if someone is playing "devil's" advocate or not? Maybe this is not devil's advocate but something called empathy?

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#48
On a slight tangent, has anyone ever looked into the etymology of the modern term troll? There hasn't been too much serious scholarship that I can find on the term, seemingly arising in mid-1980s newsgroups. But, I did find this which is my current best understanding; I also read in an old student newspaper edition that it refers to the trollish inhabitants underneath Bridge building on campus. From an Oral History of Caltech:

> ERWIN:Could you perhaps tell about bringing back A Broader View with its sequel, the new sequel? Because I think that’s very interesting. CLARK:Well, that was fun to do. The play readers group in 1987 decided to renew the play-reading party, which was one of the great traditions of the fifties and early sixties. And Bob Oliver asked me if I’d dust of f A Broader View. Well, I looked at it and I thought of updating it. But the shift in the twenty years had been so much that updating was impossible; it’s just a period piece or nothing. So we had to do it unchanged. And then I felt honor bound to write a sequel to it, which is called Troll’s Progress. The theme of it is that the essential Caltech never changes. It’s firmly founded on terror. [Laughter] And no froufrou can disguise that fact. And people who play together pray together, twitch together, stay together. Anyway, that theme allowed for a number of wisecracks, and I like to think the dialogue is rather funny. The kids who did it were tremendous. The undergraduates, of course, we know are stars.

> ERWIN:What was the origin of the troll?

> CLARK:Well, that goes back into Caltech history. And it’s probably Caltech’s only contribution to American culture. [Laughter] If you have to ask the meaning of the word, you’ll never understand what it means. But to put you sort of in the framework—that’s discussed, incidentally, in the dialogue of Beautiful Beckman there’s a segment on that. But a troll is a very high-voltage nerd. It used to be he lived “under DuBridge.” The kid that never sees the light of day, really, he’s so busy with his books. There are apprentice trolls at other schools, but ours are an order of magnitude more trollish. People who are compulsive and pathological students are much more so here. > ERWIN:Somewhere you referred to this as a “random troll.”

> CLARK:Oh, that’s the worst thing you can be called. You see, it means you’re just like a number; you have no personality. You might as well be a computer—nothing to distinguish. Oh, man, when you’re a random troll, you’re beyond the pale. [Laughter]

> ERWIN:In A Broader View, you called the Caltech undergrad “intellectually brilliant, emotionally immature, culturally deprived, and socially gauche.” And then, immediately afterward, I believe you gave the Caltech professor the identical description. That brings us to the point of what the shows were for underneath it all.

Source: http://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/95/1/OH_Clark_K.pdf

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#49

On a slight tangent, has anyone ever looked into the etymology of the modern term troll? There hasn't been too much serious scholarship that I can find on the term, seemingly arising in mid-1980s newsgroups. But, I did find this which is my current best understanding; I also read in an old student newspaper edition that it refers to the trollish inhabitants underneath Bridge building on campus. From an Oral History o…

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://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html ):

troll v., n.

1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well- constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook.

3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a follow-up to troll postings.

Re: The Notion of “Trolling” in Ancient Sanskrit

#50
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 seems to me that even when a statement is prefaced with something like "just for the sake of the argument", this is just a cover, allowing the writer to state an unpopular (or hateful, or patently wrong) opinion, while hopefully shielding themselves from some of the blowback. It's the whole "I'm just asking the question" phenomena, and I see it a lot with people who claim to be centrists but are more accurately de…

Presuming that is always the case will also lead you to some very incharitable conclusions, and in turn lead /you/ to take up the lattermost position of the article: taking up positions solely in order to be in opposition.
Post reply on HN