5 ms·

What about books that amount to propaganda or indoctrination? There's obvious potential for harm in books that promote dangerous ideologies or things like self-

What about books that amount to propaganda or indoctrination? There's obvious potential for harm in books that promote dangerous ideologies or things like self-harm and suicide. In the age of self-publishing and AI authoring, a book can contain pretty much anything without the quality/safety filters that publishing used to imply - maybe it's time to revise your stance?

fsloth 2y ago
The only harm books cause is they stimulate thinking and erode powerbase of societies whose political structure is based on unquestioned deference.
- notarobot123 2y ago
  A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    > In Greek mythology, the Pierian Spring of Macedonia was sacred to the Pierides and the Muses. As the metaphorical source of knowledge of art and science, it was popularized by a couplet in Alexander Pope's 1711 poem An Essay on Criticism: "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
- immibis 2y ago
  What about when people take on unquestioning deference to certain books, such as (for illustrative purposes and I'm not saying this particular book is actually likely to cause this) Mein Kampf? What's the difference between Alex Jones preaching antivaxism on his internet podcast that you listen to, or in a book that you read?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lazide 2y ago
    Do you really think your average Nazi read Mein Kampf? Or that your average authoritarian Christian (or Muslim!) has read their holy books? Fanatics may pretend, but rarely actually read. After all, it may conflict with their fanaticism. They are happy to control what everyone else is able to read though.
    - matwood 2y ago
      As an atheist I often know the religious texts better than those who want to tell me I'm going to hell or whatever. As a kid I was thrown out of Sunday School for asking too many questions because I took the time to read the damn book.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Pro: more free time Con: ostracized You’re not the only one.
        matwood 2y ago
        As an adult I haven’t come across many cons. I’m not a jerk about it unless someone tries to push their beliefs on me so it rarely comes up.
        lazide 2y ago
        Sounds like you are in a place where people don’t murder each other due to apostasy or religious differences.
    - immibis 2y ago
      I specifically said it probably didn't but was just a generic example of a book of bad ideas.
dornan 2y ago
This isn't much of an issue when competing ideas are available. If your ideology is so crappy you have to "indoctrinate" people then in an open venue like a library your books aren't much more than a curiosity. Step 1 of teaching people to uncritically accept crappy ideas is to remove all references to anything that contradicts them. Maybe it's time to revise your stance?
- notarobot123 2y ago
  Our information ecologies aren't so straightforward as to always ensure the most rational ideas will always out-compete the irrational. I agree that it's hard to see your own ideological commitments without seeing alternatives. Yet allowing any and all ideologies the same opportunities to compete for public attention is clearly problematic. You don't want to wait until flat-earth theories and holocaust denial go fully mainstream to start to nuance your no-standards policy.
  - vintermann 2y ago
    > Our information ecologies aren't so straightforward as to always ensure the most rational ideas will always out-compete the irrational. In that case, how do you know the rational ones won out in you? It's always other people getting brainwashed we worry about, right?
    - vacuity 2y ago
      It's much easier to see flaws in others than ourselves. Introspection is a habit that must be developed, and it has layers. The average person is not rational (I would say no one is); it's because of education that we have "rational thinking". It's basically "right place, right time" but with the luck being systematized. Just hope that the people being sorta-rational are on the right track and elevate the tide.
    - notarobot123 2y ago
      I agree, let's be open to new ideas and to revising our perspective. Humility is necessary if we know that our own knowledge is only based on the best information available. That said, we shouldn't then count all our present knowledge as worthless and any and all kinds of information as equally valid and worthy of dissemination. I do get your fear - censorship is a dangerous tool that is not always used responsibly. Yet abandoning any kind of social self-regulation in what information circulates publicly sounds a lot more dangerous.
PaulRobinson 2y ago
I would rather let a young person run free in a library or bookshop than on YouTube or TikTok. The primary difference is that in a library or bookshop there are competing ideas right there in the same room. A curious mind will develop critical thinking skills. There are also curators who care about something other than making money - they're playing a long game, so will apply quality/safety filters. This is opposite to the algorithms, which in the name of monetization needs to pull you down into a rabbit hole, an echo chamber void of contradiction, a spell of indoctrination and affirmation of your own Worldview. Fiction, in particular, is a useful abstraction to grow emotional intelligence in hand with critical thinking. It allows - no, it demands - you develop a sense of empathy and live a life in someone else's shoes. You can then bring that experience back to your own idea of self and your place in the World. There's a lot of money in putting ads next to content teaching a kid who feels sad that they should kill themselves. I have absolutely no doubt that the World would be a better place if people were inclined to read books instead of hang out on social media, even if those books did contain dangerous ideologies. So, maybe it's time to revise your stance.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  This is exactly it. Add to this the simple reality that each kid has a different temperament and maturity levels and you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to given that their filters were not developed yet.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to Control we got. Parenting time is up 20-fold (few hours/week->24/7adulting) from my parents generation (silent gen). Consequently, compared to my parents, I (gen x) had 20x the control over my what my kids were exposed to. Parenting was exhausting for me. My kids spent their entire childhood in adult-populated, adult-curated boxes. They were denied the regular hours of adult-free, free-range time, where I developed my most of my life skills. But as a parent, I had pretty exclusive control over what my 5 sons were exposed to.
duncanfwalker 2y ago
There's a few different things in there that I think have different answers. I'd draw a distinction between banning and curating to cover the quality points. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world but I'd say in the UK there's a clear consensus that people shouldn't be able to incite violence - and that covers books. Suicide and self-harm is a bit more tricky, there are books that deal with those topics that might be important to include in a curation depending on the context - e.g. the readers age and how vulnerable they are.
bjourne 2y ago
No? Both Lolita and Mein Kampf has been available no questions asked in most well-stocked libraries for decades. If older generations survived that, I see no reason why younger generations wouldn't.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Y_Y 2y ago
  In fact, Hitler grew up without reading Mein Kampf. I wouldn't want to take the chance of that happening again.
FpUser 2y ago
I have healthy advice for those who want to limit what I read: go fuck yourself. I do not remember selling off my soul to those victims of unsuccessful abortion.
southernplaces7 2y ago
>There's obvious potential for harm in books that promote dangerous ideologies Feel like specifically defining these dangerous ideologies and explaining why you or anyone in a position of non-parental authority should be the people who get to decide if youth and kids are "exposed" (as if we were talking about some poisonous substance) to them and to what degree? Same goes for self harm and suicide. Maybe these subjects should be added to a list of other things that young people's fragile little minds should be morally kept away from? Lot's of room for defining all kinds of literature, text and ideas as supposedly promoting self harm, or suicide. Better we keep things forcefully childish for young minds instead? This shitty, tired story is very old and remains as stupid as it ever was. The dogmas and censorship fixations may vary but the people promoting them always pull out their tedious little "protecting children from harmful ideas" card as justification to then repress whatever doesn't suit their pet ideological obsessions. If anyone should carefully consider their stance it's closet censors who can't stop thinking as you seem to.
protocolture 2y ago
Propaganda is just information silly. I literally hung a lantern on this. How are people meant to study propaganda and develop tactics to counter it if they cant go and read it. Maybe its time to revise your stance?

fsloth 2y ago

The only harm books cause is they stimulate thinking and erode powerbase of societies whose political structure is based on unquestioned deference.

notarobot123 2y ago
A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  > In Greek mythology, the Pierian Spring of Macedonia was sacred to the Pierides and the Muses. As the metaphorical source of knowledge of art and science, it was popularized by a couplet in Alexander Pope's 1711 poem An Essay on Criticism: "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
immibis 2y ago
What about when people take on unquestioning deference to certain books, such as (for illustrative purposes and I'm not saying this particular book is actually likely to cause this) Mein Kampf? What's the difference between Alex Jones preaching antivaxism on his internet podcast that you listen to, or in a book that you read?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lazide 2y ago
  Do you really think your average Nazi read Mein Kampf? Or that your average authoritarian Christian (or Muslim!) has read their holy books? Fanatics may pretend, but rarely actually read. After all, it may conflict with their fanaticism. They are happy to control what everyone else is able to read though.
  - matwood 2y ago
    As an atheist I often know the religious texts better than those who want to tell me I'm going to hell or whatever. As a kid I was thrown out of Sunday School for asking too many questions because I took the time to read the damn book.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Pro: more free time Con: ostracized You’re not the only one.
      - matwood 2y ago
        As an adult I haven’t come across many cons. I’m not a jerk about it unless someone tries to push their beliefs on me so it rarely comes up.
        lazide 2y ago
        Sounds like you are in a place where people don’t murder each other due to apostasy or religious differences.
  - immibis 2y ago
    I specifically said it probably didn't but was just a generic example of a book of bad ideas.

dornan 2y ago

This isn't much of an issue when competing ideas are available. If your ideology is so crappy you have to "indoctrinate" people then in an open venue like a library your books aren't much more than a curiosity. Step 1 of teaching people to uncritically accept crappy ideas is to remove all references to anything that contradicts them. Maybe it's time to revise your stance?

notarobot123 2y ago
Our information ecologies aren't so straightforward as to always ensure the most rational ideas will always out-compete the irrational. I agree that it's hard to see your own ideological commitments without seeing alternatives. Yet allowing any and all ideologies the same opportunities to compete for public attention is clearly problematic. You don't want to wait until flat-earth theories and holocaust denial go fully mainstream to start to nuance your no-standards policy.
- vintermann 2y ago
  > Our information ecologies aren't so straightforward as to always ensure the most rational ideas will always out-compete the irrational. In that case, how do you know the rational ones won out in you? It's always other people getting brainwashed we worry about, right?
  - vacuity 2y ago
    It's much easier to see flaws in others than ourselves. Introspection is a habit that must be developed, and it has layers. The average person is not rational (I would say no one is); it's because of education that we have "rational thinking". It's basically "right place, right time" but with the luck being systematized. Just hope that the people being sorta-rational are on the right track and elevate the tide.
  - notarobot123 2y ago
    I agree, let's be open to new ideas and to revising our perspective. Humility is necessary if we know that our own knowledge is only based on the best information available. That said, we shouldn't then count all our present knowledge as worthless and any and all kinds of information as equally valid and worthy of dissemination. I do get your fear - censorship is a dangerous tool that is not always used responsibly. Yet abandoning any kind of social self-regulation in what information circulates publicly sounds a lot more dangerous.

PaulRobinson 2y ago

I would rather let a young person run free in a library or bookshop than on YouTube or TikTok. The primary difference is that in a library or bookshop there are competing ideas right there in the same room. A curious mind will develop critical thinking skills. There are also curators who care about something other than making money - they're playing a long game, so will apply quality/safety filters. This is opposite to the algorithms, which in the name of monetization needs to pull you down into a rabbit hole, an echo chamber void of contradiction, a spell of indoctrination and affirmation of your own Worldview. Fiction, in particular, is a useful abstraction to grow emotional intelligence in hand with critical thinking. It allows - no, it demands - you develop a sense of empathy and live a life in someone else's shoes. You can then bring that experience back to your own idea of self and your place in the World. There's a lot of money in putting ads next to content teaching a kid who feels sad that they should kill themselves. I have absolutely no doubt that the World would be a better place if people were inclined to read books instead of hang out on social media, even if those books did contain dangerous ideologies. So, maybe it's time to revise your stance.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
This is exactly it. Add to this the simple reality that each kid has a different temperament and maturity levels and you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to given that their filters were not developed yet.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > you immediately realize why parents want to have some level of control over what the kid is exposed to Control we got. Parenting time is up 20-fold (few hours/week->24/7adulting) from my parents generation (silent gen). Consequently, compared to my parents, I (gen x) had 20x the control over my what my kids were exposed to. Parenting was exhausting for me. My kids spent their entire childhood in adult-populated, adult-curated boxes. They were denied the regular hours of adult-free, free-range time, where I developed my most of my life skills. But as a parent, I had pretty exclusive control over what my 5 sons were exposed to.

duncanfwalker 2y ago

There's a few different things in there that I think have different answers. I'd draw a distinction between banning and curating to cover the quality points. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world but I'd say in the UK there's a clear consensus that people shouldn't be able to incite violence - and that covers books. Suicide and self-harm is a bit more tricky, there are books that deal with those topics that might be important to include in a curation depending on the context - e.g. the readers age and how vulnerable they are.

bjourne 2y ago

No? Both Lolita and Mein Kampf has been available no questions asked in most well-stocked libraries for decades. If older generations survived that, I see no reason why younger generations wouldn't.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Y_Y 2y ago
In fact, Hitler grew up without reading Mein Kampf. I wouldn't want to take the chance of that happening again.

FpUser 2y ago

I have healthy advice for those who want to limit what I read: go fuck yourself. I do not remember selling off my soul to those victims of unsuccessful abortion.

southernplaces7 2y ago

>There's obvious potential for harm in books that promote dangerous ideologies Feel like specifically defining these dangerous ideologies and explaining why you or anyone in a position of non-parental authority should be the people who get to decide if youth and kids are "exposed" (as if we were talking about some poisonous substance) to them and to what degree? Same goes for self harm and suicide. Maybe these subjects should be added to a list of other things that young people's fragile little minds should be morally kept away from? Lot's of room for defining all kinds of literature, text and ideas as supposedly promoting self harm, or suicide. Better we keep things forcefully childish for young minds instead? This shitty, tired story is very old and remains as stupid as it ever was. The dogmas and censorship fixations may vary but the people promoting them always pull out their tedious little "protecting children from harmful ideas" card as justification to then repress whatever doesn't suit their pet ideological obsessions. If anyone should carefully consider their stance it's closet censors who can't stop thinking as you seem to.

protocolture 2y ago

Propaganda is just information silly. I literally hung a lantern on this. How are people meant to study propaganda and develop tactics to counter it if they cant go and read it. Maybe its time to revise your stance?