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

Aristotle, “On Trolling”

journals.cambridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#51

Post by ionwake »

sevensor wrote: post #49
ionwake wrote: post #48

Please excuse my ignorance, but can someone tell me where in that article Aristotle comes into play? I did not see any attributed quotes, unless I missed one? Thank you

This is very much in the style of Aristotle's writings. The parenthesized Greek words appear as if placed there by a translator who had to reach for an approximate word in English and wanted to be precise about the meaning of the original.

>And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call ‘troll’ anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man.

Sorry but if this prose is not Aristotle than where are his quotes? Or is the article simply meant to be written in his style?

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#53

Post by chippy »

iopq wrote: post #40
chippy wrote: post #36

I think we, as hackers, are somewhat lucky when identifying trolls. This is because our projects, our work with computers encourages less ambiguity. For example, if a troll enters a thread and asks a question about why a product doesnt support feature X we can give good, rational answers. If they don't get our message and press forward with their ignorance we can dismiss them as troll. We, as hackers, as members of c…

The fact that people still discuss spaces vs. tabs easily disproves your point. Vi vs. emacs? Again, group dynamics in action, and those discussions still end up in thousands of replies.

>your point

I made several points in my comment :-)

I imagine you were referring to the first point - that we, as hackers are lucky in our projects and work in that there is often good clarity as to likely questions, but that vi vs emacs means that there is no clarity. I believe that this is not a good example of our work and our close technical projects but rather that you are agreeing with my other points, that it's about social dynamics and people being invested in a certain community. That is, vi vs emacs is about groups, but it's not about trolling. A troll is an individual. An entire other community, whilst helping to define other communities by its opposition cannot be labelled a community of trolls. Most people do not consider 4chan to be a community of trolls, for example. I don't think there has ever been a community of trolls, and if there has, they have never identified themselves as such.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#54

Post by capnrefsmmat »

ionwake wrote: post #51
sevensor wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very much in the style of Aristotle's writings. The parenthesized Greek words appear as if placed there by a translator who had to reach for an approximate word in English and wanted to be precise about the meaning of the original.

>And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call ‘troll’ anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man. Sorry but if this prose is not Aristotle than where are his quotes? Or is the article simply meant to be written in his style?

The article is facetiously claimed to be written by Aristotle and merely translated by a modern scholar, Rachel Barney.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#55

Post by yummyfajitas »

kazinator wrote: post #6

> And this is how the troll generates strife. For what he indicates is known to be false or harmful or ignorant; but he does not say that thing, but rather something close. Haha, that is naive, or perhaps incomplete. Actually the "worst" trolls simply tell some uncomfortable truth (which isn't false or ignorant, and he who respects truth wouldn't dare call it harmful). That is to say, sometimes trolls disrupt communi…

One need not even tell a truth to troll - one can merely ask a question that has no good answer.

These are my best trolls: "what are the underlying principles that lead you to believe X?" "what evidence - if any - would cause you to hold a different belief?"

It's the best troll, because when folks come up with no answer they usually resort to ad-hominem attacks. That's usually how you know you've raised a very good point.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#56

Post by Kurtz79 »

hguant wrote: post #19
labster wrote: post #14

for there is no art in what they do. I couldn't disagree more. There is common trolling and there is sublime trolling. The ability to sow the perfect amount of strife to create real change is a thing of beauty. This goes beyond the tactics of information warfare -- for which trolling has its uses -- and reveals truth to those in ignorance. For most true knowledge cannot be learned by the advice of elders alone, but m…

Your comment relies on a misunderstanding of what Aristotle - or his proxie here - means by the term "art". In modern usage, something that has no art to it is base, simple, and requires no effort to achieve. However, art meant something more nuanced to Aristotle (that nuance is why people still make a living arguing over the implications of what he said). For Aristotle, an art was something that pointed to the Good.…

In general, "art" had a different meaning in past times compared to today.

It was the subject of this very interesting excerpt by Knuth, recently posted by pg.

http://www.paulgraham.com/knuth.html

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#57

Post by gandarojin »

igravious wrote: post #17
javajosh wrote: post #3

I was unaware that people trolled for any other reason than amusement. Is there an estimate of how frequently people troll for calculated (e.g. monetary) reasons? So my take is that she says trolls act as a kind of solvent to the natural bonds of community, and she lists a few frequently used constructions. I suppose the only beneficial use of trolls and trolling is to destroy communities of little worth. If trolls s…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1555005/Seven-chil... Can we really call trolls evil if within a community they counteract group-think, wage a war on cliché, and subvert unthinking and tired stereotyping? Perhaps Aristotelian virtue theory can help us answer these questions?

I wonder, is there a correlation between the telegraph.co.uk article and your comment?

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#58

Post by typon »

kazinator wrote: post #6

> And this is how the troll generates strife. For what he indicates is known to be false or harmful or ignorant; but he does not say that thing, but rather something close. Haha, that is naive, or perhaps incomplete. Actually the "worst" trolls simply tell some uncomfortable truth (which isn't false or ignorant, and he who respects truth wouldn't dare call it harmful). That is to say, sometimes trolls disrupt communi…

The author clearly explains the difference between breaking a circlejerk and trolling. Read the whole thing.

Re: Aristotle, “On Trolling”

#59

Post by etherael »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #55
kazinator wrote: post #6

> And this is how the troll generates strife. For what he indicates is known to be false or harmful or ignorant; but he does not say that thing, but rather something close. Haha, that is naive, or perhaps incomplete. Actually the "worst" trolls simply tell some uncomfortable truth (which isn't false or ignorant, and he who respects truth wouldn't dare call it harmful). That is to say, sometimes trolls disrupt communi…

One need not even tell a truth to troll - one can merely ask a question that has no good answer. These are my best trolls: "what are the underlying principles that lead you to believe X?" "what evidence - if any - would cause you to hold a different belief?" It's the best troll, because when folks come up with no answer they usually resort to ad-hominem attacks. That's usually how you know you've raised a very good p…

Why would you call that a troll, rather than simple rational enquiry?
Post reply on HN