fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3538 ]

Skip to Main Content

[ SECRET POST #3538 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3538 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 56 secrets from Secret Submission Post #506.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Are there any books that should be banned?

Are you fucking kidding?

The Game

There is literally nothing to be gained from it.

A lot to be gained from not banning, it.

I was thinking Mein Kampf, but yes the game is utter garbage that really only lessens the world.

Thank you! I support this decision.

Banning doesn't seem like a very good/practical/positive way of combating toxic ideas or protecting children from non-child-appropriate materials. Certainly there are books that shouldn't be taught in school (50 Shades of Gray, to take a kind of silly but hopefully useful example), which is why we have teachers. And certainly there are books that shouldn't be published because they're just crazy/evil people ranting, which is why we have editors.

Editors are moral gatekeepers? I thought they were businesspeople.

no, not so much moral gatekeepers as people who will reject a lot of books that are truly not worth reading (and accept a lot too, but my point is just that there's some measure of quality control)

Nope, a ~free society has to be able to cope with toxic and/or dangerous ideas.

+1

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
anything by Cassie Claire

plagiarism shouldn't be awarded or made into a profit

Not denying Dan Brown's general level of suck, but what did he plagiarize? Is this about Umberto Eco?

I vaguely remember that a couple of nonfiction writers tried to sue him for using their whackadoo theories as the basis for his potboilers, but I don't think it went anywhere, since you can't copyright ideas (otherwise the whole Urban Fantasy section of the bookstore would be involved in a lawsuit, on one side or another.)

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 07:35 (UTC) - Expand

No. It is stupid to think any books should be banned.

I'm definitely not really a fan of banning books. Yes, there's a lot of bad ones, with horrible views and ideas. But actually banning books doesn't sit right with me. Freedom of expression is important, and I have to wonder, who would be in charge of banning books, how can they be held accountable, and what would even be their criteria? It'd be just as easy to ban, for example, Harry Potter on religious grounds as it is to ban Mein Kampf. And that's a slippery slope I'm not willing to take a ride on.

nope. some books really do need banned because they outright instruct and encourage people on how to commit violent crimes and avoid being caught. shit like To Train Up a Child. that book should not fucking exist, end of story.

Re: Banned Books

dethtoll - 2016-09-10 23:37 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 23:42 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

dethtoll - 2016-09-10 23:44 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

ill_omened - 2016-09-11 00:01 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 00:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 07:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 15:41 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:15 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:17 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 20:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 20:41 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 20:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 18:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 18:39 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 20:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:39 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:56 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-10 23:50 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 00:12 (UTC) - Expand

To Train Up a Child. a manual on how to abuse kids and evade the authorities should not exist. it's already been linked to the deaths of three children.

People like to say "banned" when they mean "made unavailable to children." I was not equipped to read and evaluate Atlas Shrugged when I was ten. I also believe that every bookstore or library has the right to decide what not to stock, and I think consumers have the right to advocate against stocking a particular book. But I don't believe it's safe to have a government organization deciding what to ban.

Yes, this, exactly. Plus there's the added gatekeeping of editors and publishers.

The interesting ones, so people will read them ;)

In terms of books you'd genuinely not want people to read (because banning is likely to have the opposite effect)... I have no idea.
Almost every book would be useful somewhere, even if in some cases the only place is in university-level courses (to analyse critically and such).

No. Made into retaining walls for gardens, or papier mâché, or folded/carved book art (especially book art that runs counter to nasty prejudiced or exploitative arguments), or paper flowers, or something else useful or beautiful, sure. Or kept for study. But banned? There are a lot of books out there that wouldn't have generated nearly so much interest if they weren't banned first. Banning doesn't work.

Actually, this comment makes me wonder, are you OK with burning books?

Re: Banned Books

(Anonymous) - 2016-09-11 16:04 (UTC) - Expand

No. Even if you're interested in repression, formally banning books is probably a relatively bad tactic. It's just not effective. Too hard to police.

I'm always kind of torn because on one hand I sometimes wish certain topics could be banned or that there needed to be larger disclaimers on when stuff is just author opinion and not in any way backed by science.

Like I ended up tossing a book that a relative bought to give to their teenage daughter that was something like "Improving Mental Health without Drugs or Medication!" that they thought would be like mindfulness and meditation, and I skimmed the first chapter that was all "Mental illness isn't real you're just an awful person, depression is a lie by Big Pharma, 'rice' is a brand name for plastic unnatural hybrid food and increases your body alkalinity and causes cancer." So I pointed that out, they were horrified, and agreed that it was awful and should be tossed out. They just... couldn't believe something awful like that could get published and put in the self-help section so they didn't double check it.

But at the same time I KNOW, I know, that someone has to make those judgement calls and I don't want Mr. "rice is a plastic" making them. So the current system has its flaws, but it's better than any other system.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only