Sign in with Facebook
Books Employed to Greatly Harmful Ends
i.e. Books which, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see have been an incitement to mass murder or other wickedness whether intended for that purpose or not. I ask that people refrain from posting The Bible and other sacred scriptures, since anyone can make the case that these have been used in service to war, crusade, murder, infanticide, and so on ad nauseam.
Thom
6022 books
296 friends
296 friends
Bri
1011 books
102 friends
102 friends
Themis-Athena (Lioness at Large)
546 books
366 friends
366 friends
Brixton
932 books
43 friends
43 friends
Xenophon
2168 books
29 friends
29 friends
Mir
14945 books
447 friends
447 friends
David
895 books
1904 friends
1904 friends
Eric
3123 books
1692 friends
1692 friends
More voters…
Comments Showing 1-50 of 53 (53 new)
with the kind of hate speech that incites mass murderWith that in mind I will add Dexter - Breivik studied the unemotional technique to get a 'job done'. Brrr
NB He also watched he-man and played WoW
Bettie wrote: "with the kind of hate speech that incites mass murderWith that in mind I will add Dexter"
OK, this is getting silly.
I'm not going to vote on any book. There are books here that are proven fakes and evil propaganda (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) there are books that espouse evil ideas (Mein Kampf). Aside from these there are books people disagree with and then there are books people "dislike" ("kids shouldn't read that!").We are responsible for what we believe and how we act. If more people had read Mein Kampf Hitler wouldn't have surprised the world by his actions. When we start banning books we're going down the same road as Hitler. Books are not "harmful". Books are just tools. They may spread harmful propaganda they may espouse harmful ideas, but what does harm is not actually a what, it's a who.
Who decides what's harmful? I suggest you watch what shows up here. Your going to see books posted from every side of the political spectrum. You're going to see fiction that takes a stand condemned and fiction condemned because it fails to take a stand. I would also hazard that every possible religious book will be placed here.
I have a mind and I can think. As long as possible I'll defend the right of everyone to publish what they want, then I'll decide what to read and not read...what to think and not think.
I don't see anyone espousing banning books.A book is an information storage, retrieval, and dissemination device. Sometimes that information causes damage because it is false, and sometimes because it is true and persons use it to do destructive things. I don't see anything pernicious about a list that recognizes these facts.
Of course, any list open to public input is going to be all over the place, but anyone who hangs out around listopia should be used to that.
Themis-Athena wrote: "(Dr. Atkins? Twilight? Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus?)"I can't speak to why Twilight is on here, except to suppose there is an automated program which adds it to every list regardless of its focus, but the other two you mention were my additions. I did not interpret "greatly harmful" in the same way as you did. I was thinking of books which influence(d) the way people live, behave, how they treat each other, etc., books advocating something which pervades our day-to-day life, long-term and/or large-scale, etc. I understand the print of a book does not in itself cause harm. Like said above, "what does harm is not actually a what, it's a who"-- sort of, since the "what" can contribute greatly to the "who's" feeling really very comfortable thinking, believing, doing, and acting out some pretty messed up stuff.
I added Men Are From Mars... here because it perpetuates and attempts to normalise binary myths of gender differentiation as innately attached to biological sex-- which keeps men and women stereotyping, fighting, oppressing, and dismissing each other, as well as disallows for gender fluidity both in those who comfortably identify as male or female, but outright rejects the whole realm of possibility amongst those who are trans, queer, intersex, etc. This book was/is wildly popular and its divisive "philosophy" props up a whole lot of (please excuse my lack of graceful word choice, but...) sexist bullshit. Maybe it's not the most influential of its sort, or the worst of its type, but I thought it was popular enough that what I was considering "harmful" would be clear. For extra measure, in the "why I added this book" field, I quoted George Carlin's response to this book's ideas, because I think it cannot be better put: "Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it."
I put the Atkin's one on here, connecting perhaps less obvious dots-- its contributions (and again, because of it's massive popularity I am supposing it had an effect on a lot of people) to advocating greater carnivorousness in the American diet--> cancers, heart disease, obesity and associated medical costs, factory and other unsustainable farming practices and associated waste runoff, air, soil and water pollution, violence against animals, horrific working conditions (still), American lifestyle/resource usage and its connection to environmental damage, world poverty and hunger, etc. I wasn't thinking of just the people who adopt this diet-- or even only of people in general-- as the only things which can suffer or be caused damage and harm. This book only represents all of the above to me, though of course it is not solely responsible for it.
Even if you don't agree with my thinking on these particular subjects/additions, hope it clarifies that I didn't add them just to be funny or whatever.
I'm not going to argue the point on and on, but I'll answer one time. I answered that. Yes there are books the espouse lies. There are books the tell lies. It's up to us the reader to look at them and question sources and motives. As for banning, book lists of "negative books", harmful books and so are the first step. I'm not picking on you Brixton, but note the books. He finds Men are from Mars Women are from Venus harmful because he sees the philosophy behind it flawed or harmful. Then he list the Atkin's diet. I assume he's (I'm assuming gender here if I'm wrong forgive me) vegan or vegetarian and finds eating meat philosophically wrong.
My doctor put me on the Atkins diet once several years ago.
I know this list doesn't actually suggest banning books or censorship but it's a first step. I repeat we all need to be responsible for our own minds.
Yes, parents need to accept the responsibility for what books their children read but sooner or later we all reach (or at least should reach) adulthood.
Okay...enjoy. I won't beat a dead horse. Just my thoughts.
Perhaps we should start a Greatly Harmful List list.*ducks*
Daffy and Donald do both have poor anger control...
Moira wrote: "OK, this is getting silly."Not so. A book that inspires or is used as a 'how-to' to facilitate a person/country to commit mass murder belongs on this list. I am in Norway atm and the trial is on and there is nowt but disdain for Dexter.
It will all calm down again, life will carry on but for the moment it is anything but 'silly'
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Daffy and Donald do both have poor anger control..."haha
Moira wrote: "OK, this is getting silly."Yeahhh, by that token why not 'The Catcher In The Rye'? ALL ASSASSINS HAVE A COPY, you know.
What, and nobody's added American Psycho yet?
T,Ad nauseam is the correct spelling, but I can't correct the error.
Reese
Reese wrote: "T,Ad nauseam is the correct spelling, but I can't correct the error.
Reese"
Much grass.
Thom wrote: "Reese wrote: "T,Ad nauseam is the correct spelling, but I can't correct the error.
Reese"
Much grass."
De nadaeam.
The Canterbury Tales?
Susanna wrote: "The Canterbury Tales?"i.e. Torturing undergraduates ?
Thom wrote: "i.e. Torturing undergraduates ?":oD
Thom wrote: "Susanna wrote: "The Canterbury Tales?"i.e. Torturing undergraduates ?"
Ah, yet another reason that it belongs on the list -- I hadn't thought of that one.
I had in mind Anti-Semitism -- promoted by the Prioress's tale.
Reese wrote: "Thom wrote: "Susanna wrote: "The Canterbury Tales?"i.e. Torturing undergraduates ?"
Ah, yet another reason that it belongs on the list -- I hadn't thought of that one.
I had in mind Ant..."
Chaucer's joke. Perhaps in poor taste. Here you have this shrumpy little Prioresse who "would weep if she saw a mouse caught in a trap" giving vent to the most vicious antisemitism imaginable....And her tale is ludicrously wrong about kids' behavior!
"Perhaps in poor taste" -- perhaps? Tell me that you're kidding, T. Joke? Are the Jews laughing? Is it possible (likely?) that this little "joke" encouraged "wickedness whether intended or not"? I think CT fits your description of works that belong
on this list.
Reese wrote: ""Perhaps in poor taste" -- perhaps? Tell me that you're kidding, T. Joke? Are the Jews laughing? Is it possible (likely?) that this little "joke" encouraged "wickedness whether intended o..."
Saying only that Chaucer is clearly writing ironically, showing the hopelessly bigotted attitudes of his own English people. The Prioresse, in telling her fantastic tail, clearly goes so far over the top --{"And as the little Christian boy was cheerfully skipping along to school singing hymns to the Blessed Mother, the dastardly Jews cut his throat and stuffed him into a privy and were subsequently damned to eternal torment"} This is not Chaucer. This is his character, the Prioresse in her utterly unacknowledged bigotry in telling stories she knows nothing about. When Chaucer was writing this, circa 1375, there were no Jews allowed to live (officially) in England, and this INCREASED anti-semitism. Chaucer gives here a vivid example...kinda like a Medieval Stewart Colbert. BTW, My Jewish students never found this particularly funny. Put it in the same catagory of egregious cringe-worthy "holocaust humor". Think of Chaucer as a Medieval Mel Brooks....Oy, gevult !
T,I appreciate, as always, your responses to my comments. And your last remark IS funny.
I'm not surprised that Chaucer's humor was lost on your Jewish students. As a student, I was not amused; as an instructor, I focused on the "Prologue" and ignored the tale. I imagine that you know that I'm familiar with Chaucer's use of irony & his mockery of the Church's rotten apples. His methods of exposing hypocrisy, bigotry, corruption were / are, however, not always (perhaps not usually) apparent to readers; and for centuries, antisemitic views have been promoted by stories that were not intended to do harm. Soooo -- I'm sticking to my claim that, regardless of the poet's intentions, CT deserves a place on the list that you started.
Reese wrote: "T,I appreciate, as always, your responses to my comments. And your last remark IS funny.
I'm not surprised that Chaucer's humor was lost on your Jewish students. As a student, I was not amu..."
And I agree, if only because ethnic slurs, whether calculated, casual, careless, or well-intentioned irony--ALL contribute to an atmosphere of "US" and "other", Gordon Allport's definition of prejudice. I'm guessing Shakespeare would defend his Shylock caricature on the grounds of "going as far as I could go" to enlighten his audience. Certainly he presented a more human and humane Jew than did Kit Marlowe or, for that matter, The Croxton Play of the Sacrament.
The title and description of this list has changed three times (that I've noticed) since I voted on it. Given enough time, perhaps none of our votes will make any sense! I've already been scolded for considering the American diet to be greatly harmful to the environment (topsoil erosion, clear-cutting of Brazilian rainforest, etc, for cattle grazing, for example), so I'm with ya, Reese, on how the perceived or directly experienced harmfulness of a work, idea, belief or behaviour often depends on which end of the shit-stick a person or group is being hit with.We must have never read this part in the class that covered CT, I would have remembered that! My professor focused so much on the state of the English language and the book's place in the history of English literature that WHAT was being said in the tales wasn't much a topic of discussion. A professor of mine in Cultural Studies would always begin his intro class with a story of when he was in the Humanities Dept, teaching art history. For years and years and years he was showing slides and talking about colour, balance, form, line, and most especially, beauty-- until one day a student said of a certain slide, "But this painting is showing women being dragged off to be raped. What is beautiful about that?" He was stopped dead in his tracks. He promptly quit the Humanities Dept and moved to Cultural Studies where he could talk (among other things) about how this painting beautifies rape (the women to be raped are shown not horrified but ecstatic, of course), and how it's dangerous to ignore that with celebratory, rather than critical, discussion. I walked away from CT being taught that it's all about the wonderful language, the genius of the author, etc. I never heard the stuff Thom quotes above. Pretty horrifying. That Cultural Studies professor always said, "Never stop asking, 'Who benefits from this?'" It sounds highly unlikely Jewish people benefited from the Prioress's tale. I know there's not much value in speculating, but if it makes Jewish people sound like scary monsters, I'd guess a lot of people walked away from it thinking Jewish people are scary monsters. People do come to a text with their own biases; I have the impression from this discussion that this tale had/has stronger potential to confirm rather than challenge anti-Semitism.
In any case, thanks for adding it and sharing your comments about why.
Brixton wrote: "The title and description of this list has changed three times (that I've noticed) since I voted on it. Given enough time, perhaps none of our votes will make any sense! I've already been scolded f..."I tweaked the title to get away from the idea that there were "books" that were, in and of themselves, "harmful". You could say, books don't terrorize people, PEOPLE terrorize people...Sadly.
Yes we should purge every book and painting and sculpture from the past that doesn't meet today's standards... The Canterbury Tales, most of Mark Twain's work, many of P.G. Wodehouse's books, To Kill a Mockingbird (a book about a man who was anything but a racist but the language can be found offensive), a great many Edgar Rice Burroughs novels, Uncle Tom's Cabin....how many more would we like to black list???I suppose I'm beating the proverbial dead horse. I noted before that I wouldn't put a book here nor vote on this list. I say again almost any book that says anything will offend somebody. Lists like this are more dangerous than any book found on the list.
Ever hear of Martin Niemöller? A quote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Thom wrote: "I tweaked the title to get away from the idea that there were "books" that were, in and of themselves, "harmful". You could say, books don't terrorize people, PEOPLE terrorize people...Sadly."Although... we all know those books which, even if they were to promote birdies and rainbows and cupcakes for all, are so inane and/or poorly/frustratingly written (all italics and no punctuation?) that they incite us to feeling violent inside, casting us into page-ripping, book-throwing despair; these are books I might be willing to call harmful in-and-of-themselves: which might explain why someone added Twilight...?
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Ever hear of Martin Niemöller? A quote:First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me. "
Amen Mike! (that's a wonderful quote! I'm not votin' on this list either!)
"The Evil that men do lives on after them, their good often interred with their bones, so let it be with Caesar." Shakespeare
Curmudgeon wrote: "Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Ever hear of Martin Niemöller? A quote:First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,..."
"Then they came for the trade unionists"....Boy, did they ever.
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "List like this are more dangerous than any book found on the list. Ever hear of Martin Niemöller? A quote:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist." etc.
Mike, I get your point-- really, I do. And although I am not a tree or a body of water or a cow or a slaughterhouse worker, I "spoke" for all of the above; my doing so was then minimalised by you with the accusation that I must have a philosophical bias ("I assume he's [...] vegan or vegetarian and finds eating meat philosophically wrong"). That seems inconsistent with the text you quoted above, which leads me to ask: if you make the argument that it is not a book which "does harm" but people who do harm with them ("what does harm is not actually a what, it's a who")-- and I agree with that statement as it would be taken at face-value-- then doesn't it also follow that it is not a list which "does harm" but people who could do harm with it? I do not see anyone here advocating book-banning or censorship of any kind, and in fact I believe this list has promoted discussion (eg, Canterbury Tales), from which I have learned something new, and have gained a greater understanding of another's experience (perhaps I can even say others' experiences, assuming Reese's feeling was not unique) with this particular text. I'm not going to call that a bad thing. *shrug*
So I have an idea, Mike, of what you stand against-- lists like this one, calling a book "harmful", etc-- but I am left wondering what it is you are standing for? I'm standing for Thom's and anyone else's freedom to make a democratically voted upon and discussed list in a public forum, and everyone else's freedom to look at it, use it, talk about it-- or not.
It should also be taken into consideration that what gets published/sold/preserved/elevated/celebrated/given value is not, has not ever been, a decision made in a vacuum by artists and audiences. I'd like to hear what Native Americans had to say 500 years ago about Columbus "discovering" America, or read women's perspectives of life in Plato's time-- but I can't. There's a reason for these things, and it isn't all explained away by "They didn't write." There are historical contexts, and powers that be within them, which made and often are still making those decisions for us, dictating what we have-- but more importantly, what we don't (and will never) have. These issues are more complicated than the attitudes and events which result in burning Beatles records, advocating the removal of Mark Twain from public school libraries, or opining on goodreads about what constitutes a "harmful" book or entertainment/diversion like listopia.
I feel as if we've been participating in a surprisingly fascinating and enlightening seminar and the class is about to end, so I don't want to say much. The participants may be getting restless, and staying after the bell has rung means postponing getting a cup of coffee and a muffin (for me, anyway). But I do want to say:(1) that I see value in the list that Thom started,(2) that Brixton has used logic and memorable details to support his/her positions, and(3) that (like Brixton) I haven't been able to see a connection between book-burning / censorship and the creation of this list.P.S. Who would have guessed that adding THE CANTERBURY TALES to the list would start a boxing match with humorous lines between rounds? When I added CT, I came close to adding THE MERCHANT OF VENICE too. Boy am I glad that I didn't go there!
Feel free Brixton. I didn't suggest that the list should not exist. I merely stated my opinion that lists of negative books...or dangerous anything are more dangerous than books and ideas. Aside from expressing my discomfort with the list I said I wouldn't add to it.That's the thing, nobody ever started out to suggest censorship...or burglarize a hotel or whatever. It's your business, make your list as I believe in freedom of thought, speech, press. Our only hope is an informed public that can and will think for itself.
In history many things started out "innocently" that were later used "for harmful ends". The Wiemar Republic thought it would be a good idea to register all German firearms, the Nazis used those lists to take them away. The Nazis also of course had a list of books they didn't approve of, as did the Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China...I could list others but I'd offend someone if I did. Look at the books already listed, not just obviously racist trash but political books from both sides and everything from the Holy Bible to Twilight.
I hope that most here are just saying "I think these books have been used for harmful ends", but that's now...feel free. I definitely think that it's your right. I just stated my opinions.
So, what do I stand for? Read the Bill of Rights, I'd say that sums most of it up well. I am a Christian and I stand for that...but I only discuss it with people who want to. I don't force. So, while I don't choose to participate here and do, as I said find the list more dangerous than the books, I'm not arguing with your right to make the list or anyone's right to participate. In this case as in the books themselves I hope the people can read them and tall the dross from what's valuable.
Allow me to indulge my annoying habit again and leave you with another quote:
"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow."
― Alan Eppers
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "That's the thing, nobody ever started out to suggest censorship...or burglarize a hotel or whatever."Funny thing, after writing my post I watched "High Sierra", in which Humphrey Bogart starts out to... burglarise a hotel!
Reese, could you pick me up a cranberry orange muffin, please, if they have them today? Many thanks!
comical that someone added a bunch of frankfurt school writings. what a friggin joke.
Why the fuck are Fyodor Dostoevsky books on this list?
Why are a lot of books on this list...Why because we can't think for ourselves and need "wiser heads" to take care of us.
I just tripped over this when looking to see what other lists were created by the same person who created the starship list. I thought it was brilliant and immediately thought to add Stranger in a Strange Land. And then I starting looking through the list and realized that the list had gotten ridiculous like most goodreads lists - which is too bad.
It is too bad that each book on here didn't have to have a defense posted in the discussion.
I think that the list of 10 books that screwed up the world captures pretty well what I thought this list was intended to be about.
I've removed an edition of the Bible and the Qur'an, as the descriptin clearly says "I ask that people refrain from posting The Bible and other sacred scriptures"
Hey! You said no sacred scriptures, why is Mein Kampf here?
lol at books like atlus shrugged and a book on freedom being voted so high
This is another totally subjective list Mark. People will place any book they disagree with on it. It's somewhat like the "Books I Rather Die Than Read" list where people condemn books they not only haven't read but deem too evil to read.As I said, subjective. I suppose any book could be used for evil purposes. Things can be taken out of context...and then there's the fact that almost all epic fantasy books weigh 8 or 10 pounds and could be used as blunt objects to batter someone to death...
oO
---
Why is John Locke on here? I'm no fan of his book but how is it more dangerous than Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto?
Absolute nonsense. From ancient philosophy which has influenced entire societies around the world from books which are essentially just critiques of systems, to Jacques Derrida (gotta reign in those JBP fanboys!), all being presented as though they are on the same level of Mein Kampf. Borders on inciting book burning.
Same question as Alex. Can someone explain to us why the Second Treatise on Government by John Locke is on here?@Duarte, just fyi, but JBP never quotes Foucault or Derrida so nobody that follows JBP 'should' be voting for their books. JBP fans would probably vote on The Communist Manifesto and any other works that lead to Communism. Any works that lead to Nazism would also be voted on.
I noted above...the list is totally subjective. ANY book can end up here depending on the person. I mean my dad gave me Black Beauty when i was 6 and I was practically traumatized by the cruelty in it. People will put any book they disagree with on this list. It's another place to apparently advocate to have your opponents muzzled.
"See the biography of Ronald Reagan is dangerous", "Look the Wizard of Oz will warp children", "Look Wealth of nations" will drag us all down, Look...etc., etc., etc.
I remind people of the fact that the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf both outline the plans of the mad. Yes they have been and are being used for great evil...but we'd all be smart to read what's in them. After all it would help to know when the secret police are coming to your door...
Or whatever.
Would imagine Locke's treatise is here because it justified the genocide of native Americans with its theory of property. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/lo...
Jacob wrote: "Would imagine Locke's treatise is here because it justified the genocide of native Americans with its theory of property. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/lo..."hmm interesting. I'll have to go back and read it again. I don't know why you'd want to destroy property when you could have it work for you instead, but like I said, I'll go back and check it out. Thank you.
Thom, what's to be done?