Banned Books discussion

Why not start a section showing how crazy our society is by posting book burning or banned books listed in the news in this section.

Moderator Wes

https://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/...

I'm conflicted. I feel like book-burning should be illegal but I also feel like people should be allowed to do as they please.

How do we prevent people from being so awful and ignorant?

Robert: I don't think these two things necessarily conflict. Book-burning itself is an attack on freedom of speech. People should be free to do as they wish, but should they be free to attack the freedom of others?

The trick is not to enforce your beliefs on your neighbors, but rather to demonstrate your beliefs as a code of conduct. In other words one should strive to exemplify that which one views as noble or virtuous, in one's own life.
After all they are only acting out of fear. Show them a life without fear, a life of honor and virtue. Do this and they will abandon their demegogues.

I'm kinda scared of maniacs that burn books, though.

I've no problem with an individual throwing a book they don't like into a fire.

Organized, sanctioned book-burning is something to be afraid of, though. That's when it becomes the destruction of ideas and an attempt to subvert free wills.

Robert wrote: "I'm kinda scared of maniacs that burn books, though."

It is never the maniacs that burn the books. Normal people build the bonfires, and normal people consign the pages to the flames.

The maniacs are the ones that tell them to do it. And when they run out of paper and ink to burn, the maniacs are the ones that hand out the shovels.

You don't have to be brave. You just have to accept that its easier to face them when they are burning books, than when they are digging mass graves.

Can we maybe avoid using words like 'crazy' and 'maniacs' for people whose actions we disagree with? If nothing else, it's inaccurate; those in power who encourage book burning and so on have perfectly rational reasons for doing so: it enhances their position of power. And besides that, the status of mentally ill people is one that means they're overwhelmingly the victims, not the perpetrators, of situations like this. (The Nazis, for example, had a policy of sterilisation of people with disabilities, including mental illness, and such policies are historically not restricted to countries we think of as dictatorships, either.)

Benjamin wrote: "Can we maybe avoid using words like 'crazy' and 'maniacs' for people whose actions we disagree with? If nothing else, it's inaccurate; those in power who encourage book burning and so on have perf..."

I can understand a desire to avoid offending the mentally ill. Maniac is used here under the definition, "an overly zealous person." I suppose that zealot would also work, though it seems a weak description of sociopaths like Reinhard Heydrich and Stalin.

J. is correct. It's a bit of dramatic language to emphasize a point, more than anything else.

I don't really care if people burn books or not, what I have a problem with is who's books they are burning. If the book burner paid for the books themselves, then burn away. But if they were paid for and owned by the school district, public library, taxpayers, etc, then they don't have the right to decide who reads what and what gets destroyed based on only their value system.

Is it bad all I can think is...what a waste of paper?

J. wrote: "I can understand a desire to avoid offending the mentally ill. Maniac is used here under the definition, "an overly zealous person." I suppose that zealot would also work, though it seems a weak description of sociopaths like Reinhard Heydrich and Stalin. "

Robert wrote: "J. is correct. It's a bit of dramatic language to emphasize a point, more than anything else."


OK, apparently you can't be bothered to read what I wrote, so I guess it's not worth discussing this. I apologise for assuming that presumably progressive-minded people would give a shit.

Benjamin wrote: "J. wrote: "I can understand a desire to avoid offending the mentally ill. Maniac is used here under the definition, "an overly zealous person." I suppose that zealot would also work, though it seem..."

I read your post, and I adressesd your strongest argument in a polite manner.

As for the rest, reason does not in and of itself indicate morality. Therefore the statement that an individual is rational is irrelevant to a moral critique.

So are you implying that we don't have the right to make moral assessments of people who's actions impact our lives? Or are you telling us that we shouldn't say mean and hurtful things in describing individuals who commit acts that we find morally wanting?

J. wrote: "Therefore the statement that an individual is rational is irrelevant to a moral critique."

Firstly, my point regarding rationality is not that it makes an act more or less moral, but merely that your choice of slur shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. Even if the slur itself wasn't a problem in general, it would certainly be misplaced in this context.

As far as being “mean and hurtful” is concerned, I have no objections to someone being offensive (whether or not you try to dress it up as “moral critique”), but slurs like “maniac” do more harm to people with disabilities than to the people the slur is actually directed at. (And as for the frankly quite silly argument that the word is being used in the sense of “overly zealous person”, where exactly do you think that meaning originated?)

Everyone commenting here gets the problem. The problem is that some people find elmements of the public discourse distateful or contrary to there own point of view. So they seek to remove the problematic bits from the world completely. They think that they have the right to do this because they are obnoxious self centered arses. And they defend themselves by hiding behind the welfare of the little children. But they still cut school funding and counseling services so they are full of it.

You objected to calling them "maniacs". I proposed the word "zealots", and you claimed I hadn't read what you had posted, and you implied that I didn't "give a shit." So I dug into the rest of your earlier post. To which you responded by stating that I don't understand, and I'm insulting the mentally ill. Are zealots going to be insulted now?

One more point. Insults and slurs have been part of moral critique since at least the Greeks and probably before. So what are you on about?

If you are a dog lover look up this ISBN 978-1625163523. I would love to hear your thoughts on this book without even reading it... The title alone makes me want to punch him in the face.

Wes wrote: "If you are a dog lover look up this ISBN 978-1625163523. I would love to hear your thoughts on this book without even reading it... The title alone makes me want to punch him in the face."

I looked up the ISBN and read the description...

We really need to find a better class of martyrs.

"We really need to find a better class of martyrs."

Well put, J.

Thanks Wes, this is a great idea! And everyone, you've brought up some really good points.

I also thank you for policing yourselves and calming each other down a bit. I ask that you refrain from sarcastic generalizations about what the rest of the people in the forum are or are not feeling/thinking/interested in. [Sarcastic generalizations about the world are completely fine, though. ;) ] Other than that, I think it makes the discussion interesting that we have different viewpoints even on the same side of the argument!

Personally, I just ignore "symbolic" book burning because it just gives those people attention which is what they want. I agree with Iggy that there's a difference in someone burning mere copies of a person's words in order to protest those words and having sanctioned and organized burning of books en mass in order to shut out ideas the perpetrators don't agree with.

[As to that book, I understand and agree with the author's point about race and prosecuting crimes. Unlike what it looks like the author is saying, I think that we need to hold the athletes of other races (and notably whites) responsible for their actions. In our society, people of color are disproportionally prosecuted for crimes and that's wrong.

While I understand that dog-fighting is more culturally acceptable in African American culture, in my mind there's no excuse for it whatsoever and anyone who has been exposed to the world at large like that man has been, is whining about being held accountable for what most of the industrialized world sees as heinous actions. I despise the author using that example to make his point. He could have used many other incidences of crimes to make his point.]

Has anyoe seen this yet http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/pen...

this thread... don't censure paper, but censure e-text and language and strive to be as politically correct as possible? actual book burning drives attention, then popularity. we are not living in the age of alexandria. digital media makes books infinitely reproducible.

Travis, I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you explain further?

Tom, I want to throw up now.

Kelly wrote: "Travis, I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you explain further?

Tom, I want to throw up now."

So do I!!

And I just took the bull by the horns and ordered a copy of that book online (a paper copy). It is a small gesture of protest and even if Penguin decides to try to force individuals to return the book, I for one (once I have received the book) WILL NEVER DO THAT.

here is another oh so brilliant attitude
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/south-caro...

Tom wrote: "here is another oh so brilliant attitude
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/south-caro..."

It never ceases to amaze me how in the supposed "Land of the Free" attitudes espoused and promoted by the Nazis and the Stalinists are not only popular put endorsed and promoted by state authorities and state governments.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/21976...

at least the cops didnt do anything silly

I have now purchased four copies of The Hindus: An Alternative History, two for me, two for my partner (paperbacks, online, at ABE books and at still reasonable prices, although that was about two weeks ago).

Please note that I have not read the book, so I have no comments as to wether the book is good or not, or wether I would even consider the book an acceptable piece of academia (my problems are entirely with the fact that the book has been withdrawn by Penguin in a cowardly manner simply because some radical ignorant religious special interest group launched a complaint).

If you also decide to purchase The Hindus: An Alternative History online, you should make sure that you purchase an actual PAPER copy of the book, and NOT AN E-BOOK, as that can easily be erased. If you have the funds to do so and value freedom of expression and despise the banning and censorship of books please do consider purchasing a copy of The Hindus: An Alternative History (whilst it is still available); we need to actively thwart the undemocratic and dictatorial (we need to not only talk about being against the banning of books but actually become involved against the banning of books).

I would also like to point out to those that would in any way agree with The Hindus: An Alternative History being removed, being banned that trying to be dictatorial and undemocratic, trying to thwart democracy and freedom of expression is a great way to make controversial books or potentially problematic and even inappropriate books popular and acceptable. I basically only purchased the book because I was so angered and aghast at the fact that the book was withdrawn by Penguin because some individuals and some special interest groups were offended (and I will likely now even read The Hindus: An Alternative History with a much more open mind as to the assertions of the author than I would have had the book not been attacked, censored and banned). Thus the ignoramuses who attacked the book, who have now succeeded in getting the book removed, have also succeeded in making the book both popular and a cause celebre and will likely even make the book continue to be both sold and bought. And that makes me smile!!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/b...

Not the same, perhaps, as books being banned at college, but still problematic and an issue, because with these trigger warnings in place, next students could well be asking for exemptions, alternate assignments and the like (that at least is my opinion).

This is my main comment about this issue (you can also read it in the comment section if you click on the link I provided):

Once you are at college or university, you should be mature enough to handle reading material that might be upsetting and/or controversial. If you cannot do this, or if you are too immature to deal with problematic and upsetting material, then college or university is not the place for you.

I am getting rather sick and tired of special interest groups and/or students who have been mollycoddled by their over-protective helicopter parents trying to DICTATE what is taught and read at college and university (and in school curriculums as well). This is what comes from school boards etc. bowing to special interest groups and permitting students to opt out of reading materials because they or their parents might be offended (it was only a matter of time before this silly trend invaded post-secondary education). I hope that colleges and universities DO NOT cave in to whining students, special interest groups and parents who think that their "delicate little flowers" must be shielded from certain reading materials, issues etc. (if you want that, don't attend college or university).

I think trigger warnings are more of a sign of empathy than anything else.

It becomes dangerous to engage in dialogue that diminishes the lived experiences of survivors of rape, violence, assault, et, that better or for worse deems these individuals as "weak." Chastising individuals who use trigger warnings for being "weak" or "overly sensitive" re-victimizes them as the perpetrators of the violence committed against them.

University and college classrooms cultivate a community of individuals. As communities, each person who reads and comments on assigned readings has a stake in the life of each individual.

As trigger warnings have become increasingly more prevalent online and offline, our energy would be better spent wondering why this is. Condemning trigger warnings condemns the thoughts, emotions, sexuality, and self-image of survivors of violence.

If you are not willing to read and open your mind to new experience you really do not belong in college. We give college students things to read because it challenges them, because it shakes them out of their complacency.

Trigger warnings could convince students not to read. It is the sign of an educated mind to entertain a thought without necessarily having to accept it.

And besides by the time one enters college, titles such as Lord of the Flies, The Diary of Anne Frank, Native Son, To Kill a Mockingbird, and subjects such as Greek mythology and the works of Shakespeare should be familiar fare in high school already.

For those students unfortunate enough to have attended school in districts whose idiot parents actually banned works such as The Diary of Anne Frank (Northville School District, Michigan 2013) and The Absolutely True Diary and of a Part-time Indian (Meridian Idaho, 2014), they've some catching up to do.

Sharon wrote: "If you are not willing to read and open your mind to new experience you really do not belong in college. We give college students things to read because it challenges them, because it shakes them o..."

That is precisely what I think (and one of my main fears and objections). Not only could it easily lead students not to read, but to use the trigger warnings as an excuse to try to get out of assignments and the like.

Also, I think more understanding all around would be gained if students who might have legitimate and serious issues with certain themes and/or subjects were to actually approach their professors and discuss these person to person (and if they felt intimidated, frightened or uncomfortable doing this, there could even be special advocates, perhaps from student disability/student access centres, to approach professors and discuss possible issues concerning triggers and other such issues). I think this would be a better and more productive approach, as well as much less of a potential slippery slope than blanket trigger warnings in general.

I also wonder if colleges and universities are discussing trigger warnings on reading materials, are they possibly also going to try to censor and control discussions in seminars and the like (because the themes being discussed could also be traumatic for certain students or could make them uncomfortable). I know one thing, I would hate it if discussing a certain book in a literature seminar would suddenly be censored and monitored.

The more trigger warnings the more I am likely to read it! :-)

Tom wrote: "The more trigger warnings the more I am likely to read it! :-)"

Me too, but I could see them being used by students to get out of having to read, assignments and the like.

So a "trigger warning" protects victims by telling them that they do not have to engage in the debate.

Aren't schools supposed to be teaching their students how to intelligently engage in the public discourse? If they can't hold their own in the safe enviroment of a classroom, how can they deal with the real world?

I don't see how you are protecting your students by teaching them to run away.

J. wrote: "So a "trigger warning" protects victims by telling them that they do not have to engage in the debate.

Aren't schools supposed to be teaching their students how to intelligently engage in the publ..."

One of the problems is that due to special interest groups, complaining parents, parents who want to artificially shield their students, many school boards now have policies where students can opt out of readings and assignments they find or could find offensive. And once these students get to university, they are often either unable to handle potentially problematic subject matter or think that they should be able to opt out of potentially problematic subject matter.

I'm not saying that there probably are not some cases where a reading, a theme, a subject matter might be too traumatic for an individual but I still think that these cases should be handled with and by reasonable discussion and not blanket trigger warnings (because as I mentioned previously, I think that is a potentially very slippery slope).

Well, it was a nice republic while it lasted.

if anything, someone who would be retraumatized by reading fresh material in a book has insufficiently processed the experience and would benefit from further exploration. most of childhood is about conformism and restrictive discourse, and nonprogrammatic discussion is not harmful.

“Trigger warnings could convince students not to read.”

What utter nonsense. This discussion would be vastly improved if people bothered to understand trigger warnings and the reasons behind them before sharing their poorly-informed opinions. There's absolutely no relation between a trigger/content warning and any sort of censorship or banning.

So, what books would merit these so-called trigger warnings, which essentially are movie-like ratings for books?

Macbeth for its general violence and Lady Macbeth's assertion concerning what'd she do to a suckling infant?

Medea, who engages in revenge to the extent of murdering her own children?

Oedipus Rex for the unintentional incest that occurs, over which a horrified Oedipus gouges out his eyes?

The Canterbury Tales? The Diary of Anne Frank? I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings? Beowulf? The Color Purple? A Tale of Two Cities? Angela's Ashes? The Iliad and The Odyssey?

The list could be endless, wouldn't you say?

People go to college to be educated and part of that education is reading literature and discussing its merits, characters, context, etc., not to mention a given title's effect on our culture. Consider Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and its effect on food purity and worker safety in this country.

And how many times has a work been referenced in song, jokes, commercial ads and the like? (See Jocasta's lament in Mighty Aphrodite and references to Oedipus Rex and Hamlet in the song That's Entertainment.) Even if you haven't read a given title but know the plot line, you get the joke if you will.

If someone is such a delicate snowflake that reading classic or edgy literature causes an emotional tailspin, then college likely is not the best place to be.

I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal. It's not as if it's some massive task to say "by the way this material contains X which certain people may find uncomfortable". It causes almost no extra work, causes no harm for people to whom it doesn't apply, and can be quite beneficial for those to whom it does apply. What, exactly, is the issue?

It also doesn't preclude people from carrying on with the course: it may be that some people are able to carry on with the material as long as they're aware and can mentally prepare themselves.

And the concerns raised here about students trying to avoid work are complete nonsense. Do you think the teachers are incompetent? It's nothing new, for a student to be exempted from certain assignments and given alternatives (two examples that were given to me: being exempted from a dissection in biology class, and being exempted from handling certain foods in a cookery class due to allergies).

This is nothing to do with being "a delicate snowflake" but about legitimate mental trauma, which doesn't require other people to do anything more than have a little compassion and awareness. Again, I suggest people try learning what trigger warnings are, and what they're for, since these ill-informed opinions help nobody.

Benjamin wrote: "I honestly don't see why it's such a big deal. It's not as if it's some massive task to say "by the way this material contains X which certain people may find uncomfortable". It causes almost no ..."

I still think that discussions would be better than blanket trigger warnings. Also, if there are going to be trigger warnings, these triggers will also not disappear when, say, in a seminar course, literary works are openly discussed and analysed. I am a bit concerned that trigger warnings could also lead to certain books being deemed problematic for in-class discussion due to the fact that some material might be quite problematic.

And furthermore, I posted a news story that I found troubling, and simply because you happen to not agree, you post replies that could be deemed almost nasty. Is that the way you tend to debate?

What's the problem with a "blanket trigger warning"? It's a simple statement that can, if necessary, lead to discussion. A person who is concerned by the material can then make an informed decision about whether to participate. And it seems pretty unlikely that people would decide en-masse to abandon the study of classic literature just because a minority of people are uninterested in studying certain parts of it..

I also find it interesting that you object to my replies being "nasty" when the whole discussion before I entered it was accusing people requesting trigger warnings of being "delicate snowflakes" demanding special treatment or just pretending in order to get out of having to do any work. I think that's pretty nasty, personally.

Benjamin wrote: "They can make an informed decision about whether to participate."

Since when do college students decide whether or not to participate in a course of instruction to which they've been assigned? Of course there's the option to drop a class within a given window of time, but to be in a class and decide whether or not to participate?

And when the grades come in and this is reflected in the student's grade for the course, is a phone call placed to the parents?

Sharon wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "They can make an informed decision about whether to participate."

Since when do college students decide whether or not to participate in a course of instruction to which they've b..."

Good point, Sharon!! If students don't participate or if they decide not to do a certain assignment, does that then also mean that they expect not to receive a lower mark or no mark at all? Would it thus not be better for students who truly have issues to talk this over with the professor of a given course at the beginning of the same (or have an advocate do it for them) instead of having them make a decision not to participate and risk a bad mark or no mark at all (and all based on some likely vague blanket warning). And frankly, I doubt that most students would simply choose not to participate, they would either demand an alternative assignment (which I could, I guess, grudgingly accept as long as this did not affect the rest of the class) or more likely and more problematically, demand that the supposedly offensive material not be covered at all in class and perhaps not even discussed in class (and that's what I am most afraid might happen, that certain books and certain subjects would simply no longer be acceptable in college classrooms, that they would be considered off-limits).

And for certain courses, almost all reading materials would or at least could have trigger warnings. Take a seminar course in post WWII German literature, for example. Many if not most works (especially from the sixties on) deal with very heavy, often violent and extremely unpleasant themes (coming in the aftermath of WWII and the Nazi terror, that is very much to be expected). I would say that perhaps even 90% of good German language post WWII literature would likely have blanket trigger warnings, and if students were to use these warnings not just as a heads-up but as a way to get out of reading, doing assignments, or a worst case scenario, which books should actually be permitted to be covered and discussed in class, a professor might end up having to give a post WWII German literature class that basically had to ignore (not cover) some if not many of the most important, most poignant and most moving German literature of the middle/late 20th and now the 21st centuries.

Hiya. I can see the concern for people taking advantage of trigger warnings to get out of work in classes, but are they not in place as a means to keep someone from disrupting a class? Say a student, of whatever gender, had been violently raped at some point. They took a class in college years later on a general literature, or American lit or English lit, but not a class focusing on literature from a very obvious time. They are assigned a book such as... I don't know, "Lolita". They have no idea what it is about, they happen to be behind in the reading, and they go into class one day when the lecture goes over the first copulation and this happens to pull the student's "trigger". Well, now the student could be screaming, weeping, running out of the room, or rocking back and forth and shaking their head. Now the entire class is disrupted, the student is reliving the trauma of their experience, and the student will most likely be deeply embarrassed in this class in the future.
Now, perhaps people who have suffered such trauma should be a little conscientious when picking courses, going over the posted reading assignments in advance and checking for potential triggers on their own initiative. But really what is wrong with a few words beside some of the titles on a reading list informing a student of the uncomfortable themes dealt with in the selection. Most professors would be understanding of why a student would not be comfortable with that particular selection. And if someone is sent into hysterics by any sign of violence, they most likely would not be taking a course on such a subject as post-WWII German lit.

Gundula wrote: ...more likely and more problematically, demand that the supposedly offensive material not be covered at all in class and perhaps not even discussed in class (and that's what I am most afraid might happen, that certain books and certain subjects would simply no longer be acceptable in college classrooms, that they would be considered off-limits).

And therein lies the problem. Just about any literature worth reading is going to have a trigger for one reason or another. So because this is the case, we are to dumb down our literature classes and history classes? Because that is certainly what this could lead to in an effort to bend to someone who may be offended for some reason or another.

As I said earlier, if you have a student who is so delicate that he or she can't take a literature or history course without altering the curriculum because, God forbid, some subject matter may be addressed, said student has no business in a college or university classroom.

And what's ironic about this issue is many of the titles that come into play are often reading material that would have been covered in any decent high school.

Sharon wrote: "Since when do college students decide whether or not to participate in a course of instruction to which they've b..."

What on earth? I'm pretty sure a university student is an adult and can choose to participate or not participate as they wish. If that has negative consequences for their grades, then so be it. But, as I already mentioned, providing an alternative assignment is not unusual for other reasons.

Gundula wrote: "...more likely and more problematically, demand that the supposedly offensive material not be covered at all in class and perhaps not even discussed in class..."

Look, if you're going to claim that this is more likely you're going to have to back that up with something other than a gut feeling, otherwise this is nothing more than baseless scaremongering.

A trigger warning is just a way to provide sufficient information for someone to make an informed decision. Trying to make it out to be tantamount to censorship is harmful nonsense.

Gundula wrote: " If students don't participate or if they decide not to do a certain assignment, does that then also mean that they expect not to receive a lower mark or no mark at all? Would it thus not be better for students who truly have issues to talk this over with the professor of a given course at the beginning of the same (or have an advocate do it for them) instead of having them make a decision not to participate and risk a bad mark or no mark at all (and all based on some likely vague blanket warning)."

I think you're completely missing the point here, by the way. If a student has issues, then a trigger warning is exactly what is needed for them to be able to make an informed decision: whether that be to discuss the matter with the lecturer, to participate regardless, or to avoid the assignment and lose the marks. All of these decisions may be valid in particular circumstances, depending on the individual and the content, but the decision requires some sort of notice up-front about the potentially problematic content.