老虎机稳赢方法

Hmm. Going by the books originally placed on this list, I'd have thought that the qualifier "greatly harmful" is meant to indicate that this list is essentially concerned with the kind of hate speech that incites mass murder. Now the list contains a few entries that, though controversial and although personally I violently disagree with/dislike them, are nowhere near causing that level of harm. (Dr. Atkins? Twilight? Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus?)

Thom, what's to be done?

with the kind of hate speech that incites mass murder

With 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 murder
With 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?

Reese wrote: "T,
Ad nauseam is the correct spelling, but I can't correct the error.
Reese"
Much grass.

The Canterbury Tales?

Susanna wrote: "The Canterbury Tales?"

i.e. Torturing undergraduates ?

Thom wrote: "i.e. Torturing undergraduates ?"

:oD

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!

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 !

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.