4 ms·

Can have fun with this particularly if it’s a 20th century European history course assignment. If books cause harm, then pretty much any religious text will be

Can have fun with this particularly if it’s a 20th century European history course assignment. If books cause harm, then pretty much any religious text will be (very) offensive to another as it’s heretical etc. psychology texts probably really offend Scientologists, and I’m sure you can come up with other combinations without too much effort. Das Kapital, any civil war history covering the western campaign and it’s generals, anything covering civil rights, the Vietnam period…

sacnoradhq 4y ago
I can't recall the quote, but "A book worth burning is a book worth reading." No one has to support or agree with ideas to delve into them, find their flaws and strengths (reality and people are mixtures of gray), and consider other perspectives. To avoid topics is one path to ignorance and decline. - Das Kapital - Understanding Socialism - The God Delusion - Bible - Quran - Mein Kampf - Atlas Shrugged - (numerous critiques of objectivism and its political-economic brand: libertarianism) - Critique of Pure Reason - The Social Contract - Industrial Society and Its Future - A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Guns, Germs, and Steel == And some fiction === - Howl - Tropic of Cancer - Four Past Midnight (yes, Stephen King) - Maus
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
Indeed, but, we all know that in those circles nobody cares about Scientologists' feelings getting hurt. There's a well-established hierarchy of sacred victim groups that have to be protected from "harm" (for an arbitrary and nebulous definition of the word) at all costs, and whose defense is one of the most pious expressions of in-group belonging. Scientologists, Christians, members of political groups on the other side of the spectrum, and many others are not recipients of such benefits. Any form of affiliation with them, including consuming their respective literature, would likely get you excommunicated unless you do sufficient public penance once caught.
- shanebellone 4y ago
  {Scientologists, Christians, members of political groups} No one likes ugly sets.
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    Does the set of all sets include itself? And is the universal set beautiful even if it contains a pointer or recursion?
kelseyfrog 4y ago
You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man. Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices. Even "there is one objective truth" are not implicitly part of restorative justice systems. The existence and practice of alternative justice systems bring to light the mechanical sympathy between reality perception and justice systems. For those who subscribe to an ideology that contains a single objective reality, the idea that not everyone believes the same way can cause an intense counter reaction. I've seen this happen to people myself. At the interaction between these two, there exists a sliver where we can say, if the book reader didn't want to be beholden to such systems, they could have voted with their feet and chose to educate themselves at a university which practiced a system of justice compatible with their beliefs. By choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice ~et al~ etc. This is a long way of saying, we may never know the nature of the harm.
- chongli 4y ago
  Just a minor nitpick: et al is only used when listing people. When listing things we use etc.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Thank you! You made it click for me :)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > by choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice et al. And other people, including Stanford alumni and donors and other constituents, are saying that if this is the result of restorative justice, it's perhaps an experiment that has run its course in its current form.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

sacnoradhq 4y ago

I can't recall the quote, but "A book worth burning is a book worth reading." No one has to support or agree with ideas to delve into them, find their flaws and strengths (reality and people are mixtures of gray), and consider other perspectives. To avoid topics is one path to ignorance and decline. - Das Kapital - Understanding Socialism - The God Delusion - Bible - Quran - Mein Kampf - Atlas Shrugged - (numerous critiques of objectivism and its political-economic brand: libertarianism) - Critique of Pure Reason - The Social Contract - Industrial Society and Its Future - A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Guns, Germs, and Steel == And some fiction === - Howl - Tropic of Cancer - Four Past Midnight (yes, Stephen King) - Maus

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

Indeed, but, we all know that in those circles nobody cares about Scientologists' feelings getting hurt. There's a well-established hierarchy of sacred victim groups that have to be protected from "harm" (for an arbitrary and nebulous definition of the word) at all costs, and whose defense is one of the most pious expressions of in-group belonging. Scientologists, Christians, members of political groups on the other side of the spectrum, and many others are not recipients of such benefits. Any form of affiliation with them, including consuming their respective literature, would likely get you excommunicated unless you do sufficient public penance once caught.

shanebellone 4y ago
{Scientologists, Christians, members of political groups} No one likes ugly sets.
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  Does the set of all sets include itself? And is the universal set beautiful even if it contains a pointer or recursion?

kelseyfrog 4y ago

You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man. Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices. Even "there is one objective truth" are not implicitly part of restorative justice systems. The existence and practice of alternative justice systems bring to light the mechanical sympathy between reality perception and justice systems. For those who subscribe to an ideology that contains a single objective reality, the idea that not everyone believes the same way can cause an intense counter reaction. I've seen this happen to people myself. At the interaction between these two, there exists a sliver where we can say, if the book reader didn't want to be beholden to such systems, they could have voted with their feet and chose to educate themselves at a university which practiced a system of justice compatible with their beliefs. By choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice ~et al~ etc. This is a long way of saying, we may never know the nature of the harm.

chongli 4y ago
Just a minor nitpick: et al is only used when listing people. When listing things we use etc.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Thank you! You made it click for me :)
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> by choosing Stanford, they implicitly consented to the system Stanford uses, restorative justice et al. And other people, including Stanford alumni and donors and other constituents, are saying that if this is the result of restorative justice, it's perhaps an experiment that has run its course in its current form.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]