91–100 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe.
>> Most of the time it doesn't even matter whether that someone actually believes what they say. > It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe. What people say is some of the lowest fidelity information to use when trying to assess what people believe. Actions >>> Words
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.
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 should not matter"
The notion that these conversations are free is an idea held by a very small group. Most people have reasonable reasons for assuming that the conversation has a cost and therefore you have a motivation for proposing a particular point of view. Some people find conversations emotionally draining, some people perceive every conversation as a risk to one's political capital, other people feel that any time invested in a conversation is a cost that should be recouped at other points, other people are keenly aware of the meta message sent by one's words and therefore the impact on the relationship of those who participate in the conversation. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that most people will assume that a person advancing a viewpoint also believes in that viewpoint, and since that perception is wide spread, if you refuse to acknowledge it with a comment such as "for the sake of argument" then ask yourself why you feel those 5 words cost you more than the 500 or 5,000 other words that you'd like to invest in the conversation.
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…
Oh no, it's definitely true.
If not, can you give me a modern equivalent to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weary_Dunlop ? Prisoner of War under the Japanese for three years, suffering horrific conditions.
After the war "Dunlop forgave his captors and turned his energies to the task of healing and building."
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:…
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.
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]
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…
About this: " it should not matter " The notion that these conversations are free is an idea held by a very small group. Most people have reasonable reasons for assuming that the conversation has a cost and therefore you have a motivation for proposing a particular point of view. Some people find conversations emotionally draining, some people perceive every conversation as a risk to one's political capital, other pe…
The point being made is if it's a substantive point it doesn't matter how much the speaker identifies with it, the valid point has been made to you and it is to be considered. Hence it should not matter provided you are sticking to the facts. It seems you have made this into a personal insult about whether or not your transactional view of the costs of speaking are being respected. That is to shoot the messenger.
The person is doing you a favor by pointing out valid concerns even if they don't agree with them.
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]
As the guidelines explain, this is not a site for ideological and political battle. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
> Simply by asking them what their position is, or what they propose to debate, they are forced into a quandary: if they propose something, then they have to defend it, and can be argued with; if they do not propose anything, then they may be asked to exit the debate. This may be easier said than done, but it may also help stop a troll once in a while!
Be sure to read the linked posts
"The toll of the trolls" (5/25/19)
"Eristic argument" (4/6/19)
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
This prefix dia- in turn may indeed be cognate with bi or di-, but at any rate the “di” in “dialectic” does not directly refer to “two”. What you've read may be a later re-analysis / false etymology.