Banning books is a really bad idea

[innonimatu]

A mandated reading list concentrating on "classics" is only going to narrow the range of literature children are exposed to, not widen it.

It's not about "classics", whatever they are in your place, versus non-classics. It's the utterly foolish idea of banning the teaching of books "because they're old".

 

[Angst]

good thing it's not a ban then

 

[Patine]

good thing it's not a ban then

Again, not yet. But the quotes of those being discussed in the OT show that they have the mindset that if it could be arranged and accomplished, they're attitude and tenor for the material indicate they'd be enthusiastically all for it. The utter contempt and derision they show the material, and the seeming belief it is better off not available to students, is palpable even in the text, and so many posters here willfully denying the undertones that are present and pretending the sentiment is completely innocent and harmless, is also disturbing. But I guess the hard literalist thinking encouraged today (another reason to rag on this material in school) says such extrapolation of motive is forbidden (unless it's Trump, of course, who only hasn't created a hard Fascist regime, genocided every American whose not Native-born White "Christian," or started a nuclear war was because "he didn't get the chance, yet." Not that I'm at all REMOTELY a fan, supporter, or defender of Trump, I think he's a monstrous ogre - I'm just pointing out ridiculous double-standards in the current of thought).

 

[AmazonQueen]

Again, not yet. But the quotes of those being discussed in the OT show that they have the mindset that if it could be arranged and accomplished, they're attitude and tenor for the material indicate they'd be enthusiastically all for it. The utter contempt and derision they show the material, and the seeming belief it is better off not available to students, is palpable even in the text, and so many posters here willfully denying the undertones that are present and pretending the sentiment is completely innocent and harmless, is also disturbing. But I guess the hard literalist thinking encouraged today (another reason to rag on this material in school) says such extrapolation of motive is forbidden (unless it's Trump, of course, who only hasn't created a hard Fascist regime, genocided every American whose not Native-born White "Christian," or started a nuclear war was because "he didn't get the chance, yet." Not that I'm at all REMOTELY a fan, supporter, or defender of Trump, I think he's a monstrous ogre - I'm just pointing out ridiculous double-standards in the current of thought).

Absolute nonsense.
Find one quote in this whole discussion that shows support for banning books.

 

[Gorbles]

Again, not yet. But the quotes of those being discussed in the OT show that they have the mindset that if it could be arranged and accomplished, they're attitude and tenor for the material indicate they'd be enthusiastically all for it.

No "they" don't. This is just you inventing an enemy to rail against

 

[Patine]

Find one quote in this whole discussion that shows support for banning books.

This question is solely meant to assert dominance of the hard literalist thinking that is choking out and killing intellectual and social potential and a meaningful, nuanced discourse that I mentioned in my quote, above, over reasonably-based interpretation and extrapolation of motives, which are valid skills in human communication.

This is just you inventing an enemy to rail against

Not at all, @Gorbles. But for railing against "reading into motives that aren't there," you're doing a spectacular - and very pompous - job of just that, right now! But you've NEVER once admitted to a single instance of hypocrisy, even though your hypocrisy surrounds you like an unignorable, choking, foul black cloud. It's almost funny, in a black humour sort of way.

 

[AmazonQueen]

This question is solely meant to assert dominance of the hard literalist thinking that is choking out and killing intellectual and social potential and a meaningful, nuanced discourse that I mentioned in my quote, above, over reasonably-based interpretation and extrapolation of motives, which are valid skills in human communication.



Not at all, @Gorbles. But for railing against "reading into motives that aren't there," you're doing a spectacular - and very pompous - job of just that, right now! But you've NEVER once admitted to a single instance of hypocrisy, even though your hypocrisy surrounds you like an unignorable, choking, foul black cloud. It's almost funny, in a black humour sort of way.

So are you admitting that at no point did anyone who posted in this thread actually support banning books?

 

[Kyriakos]

Absolute nonsense.
Find one quote in this whole discussion that shows support for banning books.

I suppose that a "Hahahaha, I finally got rid of all SJW threads!" is not technically a ban on SJW discussion taking place, just ensuring they aren't OP.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I suppose that a "Hahahaha, I finally got rid of all SJW threads!" is not technically a ban on SJW discussion taking place, just ensuring they aren't OP.

You're not making any sense.

 

[Kyriakos]

You're not making any sense.

Not a difficult parallel to notice, imo:

-Book not in the curriculum, thus cannot itself be the start of discussion
-Book may still, in theory, be referenced in other books, thus be brought up later

Likewise, the opening post (OP) can't be SJW, but some later post can be that, due to connections.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Not a difficult parallel to notice, imo:

-Book not in the curriculum, thus cannot itself be the start of discussion
-Book may still, in theory, be referenced in other books, thus be brought up later

Likewise, the opening post (OP) can't be SJW, but some later post can be that, due to connections.

By that logic every book that is not in the curriculum has been effectively banned. Presumably you do accept that not every book can be covered so there does have to be some selection of what is on the curriculum.
You want a set list of "classics". The OP wanted only modern books. I'd prefer a diverse mix but would prefer teachers make the choice rather than bureaucrats or politicians.

 

[Kyriakos]

By that logic every book that is not in the curriculum has been effectively banned. Presumably you do accept that not every book can be covered so there does have to be some selection of what is on the curriculum.
You want a set list of "classics". The OP wanted only modern books. I'd prefer a diverse mix but would prefer teachers make the choice rather than bureaucrats or politicians.

You read me wrong; I only care about the homeric epics
Besides, the Odyssey has enough weirdness and sex for teens to like it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

You read me wrong; I only care about the homeric epics
Besides, the Odyssey has enough weirdness and sex for teens to like it.

So so long as English Literature includes a translation of a Greek work you're fine?

 

[Kyriakos]

So so long as English Literature includes a translation of a Greek work you're fine?

Yes. I am all for compromise.

 

[bernie14]

Would "deplatformed" be a more preferable term to "banning?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Would "deplatformed" be a more preferable term to "banning?

Admitting that no books have been banned would be preferable.

 

[bernie14]

Admitting that no books have been banned would be preferable.

That's why I'm asking

 

[innonimatu]

Revisiting this because there's good opinion piece on the current trend on the academia of the anglo-saxon world of performing political antics against the "classics".

Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture. Those who commit this terrible act treat Western civilization as either irrelevant and not worthy of prioritization or as harmful and worthy only of condemnation.
[...]
The Western canon is, more than anything, a conversation among great thinkers over generations that grows richer the more we add our own voices and the excellence of voices from Africa, Asia, Latin America and everywhere else in the world. We should never cancel voices in this conversation, whether that voice is Homer or students at Howard University. For this is no ordinary discussion.

The Western canon is an extended dialogue among the crème de la crème of our civilization about the most fundamental questions. It is about asking “What kind of creatures are we?” no matter what context we find ourselves in. It is about living more intensely, more critically, more compassionately. It is about learning to attend to the things that matter and turning our attention away from what is superficial.
[...]
The removal of the classics is a sign that we, as a culture, have embraced from the youngest age utilitarian schooling at the expense of soul-forming education.
[...]
Students must be challenged: Can they face texts from the greatest thinkers that force them to radically call into question their presuppositions? Can they come to terms with the antecedent conditions and circumstances they live in but didn’t create? Can they confront the fact that human existence is not easily divided into good and evil, but filled with complexity, nuance and ambiguity?

This classical approach is united to the Black experience. It recognizes that the end and aim of education is really the anthem of Black people, which is to lift every voice. That means to find your voice, not an echo or an imitation of others. But you can’t find your voice without being grounded in tradition, grounded in legacies, grounded in heritages.

As German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer emphasized in the past century, traditions are inescapable and unavoidable. It is a question not of whether you are going to work in a tradition, but which one. Even the choice of no tradition leaves people ignorantly beholden within a language they didn’t create and frameworks they don’t understand.

That it got published where it got is probably a signal that the high-tide mark of this particular fad has been reached and is receding.

 

[Kyriakos]

Revisiting this because there's good opinion piece on the current trend on the academia of the anglo-saxon world of performing political antics against the "classics".



That it got published where it got is probably a signal that the high-tide mark of this particular fad has been reached and is receding.

We should also do this "find your own voice" thing in math and physics. This way all kinds of people will (re) discover important stuff

 

[aelf]

K