Problematic Novels

How should problematic books be approached, both individually as readers and collectively as society? By "problematic book" I mean: a novel which either implicitly or explicitly promotes a political or social aim that is hateful or repugnant. My main example is Starship Troopers. In this book, Heinlein straightforwardly promotes a fascist, hyper-militarist form of government. However, it's also a great book on many other levels. I found it an excellent read, but I read it very critically. I imagine if I was thirteen and reading it thinking "this is cool!" I could have come away with very different ideas. I'm glad the movie made it look so stupid, because that was probably the best way to avoid people coming away with the wrong idea. This is also different from the question of separating art and artist. That is a completely separate discussion. The question is, when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: what to do with it? Should it be celebrated, flaws and all? Should it never be appreciated?

>>11947 >What to do about books Read them. Or don't. Your call. It's that easy. But if you guys (namely, marxists) ban them, I already have a massive 20TB+ archive of books, a good chunk of them being third positionist / "far-right" / fascist / natsoc. I WILL reprint them and spread them around. I'm damn good, and fast, at bookbinding. You can't stop it, you never could and never will. Several friends of mine actually used to smuggle books into their commie soykafhole until it fell to something more reasonable, so I can get their help on the matter, too.

>>11948 That's some good pasta. Maybe worth derailing the thread within literally ten words.

>individually A little political education goes a long way. To be honest most science fiction authors tend to be political dunces with only the most superficial knowledge of political economy beyond the propagandist crap we were all taught in school. They're more interested in science and technology and frequently suffer from the naive notion that science and technology can be separated from political economy. >collectively as a society The same way every other stupid political idea in history can be dealt with: make society so comfortable and uplifting that stupid political ideas have no space to take root in the first place.

>I'm glad the movie made it look so stupid, because that was probably the best way to avoid people coming away with the wrong idea. I'm impressed the book seem to be actually serious with it's tone like you describe and from what I've read on its wiki page. The movie made it seem like the book was equally as bombastic and yet self-aware of what it is pushing to comedic/parody effects. I'll have to put it on my ever-growing reading list to get a proper opinion on it, but, so far, my first impressions are surprised and curious. >when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: what to do with it? If it should never be appreciated, but has merit, it still deserves to be studied like you did. With the context of starship troopers, it's an interesting book as an historical peak into how the military was perceived in 1960. (Albeit from a single POV : the author's POV.) Going beyond just the text but also the reception it had gives more context beyond just the author's words, too. Other than from the real-life historical value, this book pushed science fiction with (at the time) brand new staple aesthetics like power armors. I wonder what made them so appealing in this book, because it is surely not the first to come up with the idea.

This is what fan culture brainrot has done to people. If it interests you, read it. If you feel like discussing it with other people, do so. If those discussions involve praise, so be it. It doesn't have to be complicated. You can hurt yourself with ideas but ideas can't hurt you on their own.

>>11952 anon, he does exactly that, he discusses a book and elements that make it not-fun for him

>>11947 >f4ggots on MY lainchan? it's more likely than you think! in a free society, books should be available to be read. end of story. in a managed society, books that are harmful to the perpetuation of the social norms should be passively restricted. e.g: in a conservative christian democracy, books on tranny kids should be derezzed in a stalinist utopia, books on private property and not starving should be derezzed >wah wah starship trupas is mean or something incredible book. no idea what you take issue with. >fascist >hyper-militarist i don't think those words mean what you think they mean >fascist -> a representative democracy in which voluntary military service is required for full citizenship, in which men/woman/any race/religion/etc are eligible for said service and benefits. you can even fulfill the service requirement by volunteering for (highly unpleasant) medical studies, thus achieving citizenship as a full pacifist. > hyper-militarist -> mankind engages in warfare with aggressive, expansionist xenoids. people respect soldiers b/c service is intentionally made miserable/dangerous/etc. to make citizenship an honor. starship troopers society is closer to ancient greek city-state than it is to any modern bastardized militant society >>11951 >judging a book that you haven't even read, the post >With the context of starship troopers, it's an interesting book as an historical peak into how the military was perceived in 1960. (Albeit from a single POV : the author's POV.) >>>heinlein was a militarist / fascist / etc you retarded fuarrrking f4ggot i can tell you've never even read moon is a harsh mistress or stranger in a strange land my god this makes my head ache

>>11954 You realize that elements of the book's plot and setting were chosen to make the political views espoused in the book seem correct and justified in context, right? That's the entire problem everyone has with the book. If it had all the philosophical discourses on why militarism is good and freedom requires military service, but they were undermined by the rest of the book, nobody would have any issue with it.

>>11954 >in a free society >in a managed society Which do you prefer? Also, OP isn't asking whether the book should be derezzed, the question is much more expansive than your answer. These "end of story" thought-terminating cliches are getting annoying.

I feel like people should establish the context around the book. ie Heinlein loved his time in the navy and starship troopers is basically what if the entire US government was the idealized version of the 1950s navy. Anyone reading also should probably be aware it follows a line of thought that military life could naturally resolve most social ills. So in starship troopers the military doesn't have any racism or sexism and the officers are intellectuals, but that thinking largely died out due to the Vietnam war. The book isn't really fascist or at least not the way people think imo. It's proposing the military as a vehicle for a progressive utopia and most fascist would not like to live in the world it proposes. Yes, it's a world where the military has almost all the power but it's also one where the military has no Chris Kyles and the culture of the military as we know it in real life would be anathema. Rasczak would get along much better with Picard than he would with Sgt Hartman. Rico is also supposed to be a model for the enlightened soldier/sailor. Like there's a reason the tail end of the book is mostly him studying in college.

>>11959 This is true, fascism is not quite the right word for the ideology Heinlein writes from in this book. Still, I think "hyper-militarist" is a good description, and the book's setting is the utopia of an authoritarian militarist ideology.

>>11948 >I'm damn good, and fast, at bookbinding. Oh, cool. Where do you live, do you do commissions, and if so, for how much? Got like 30 digital books for which no physical prints exist, and I think it would be awesome to have them pressed between covers.

>>11953 OP asked a specific question, and I responded to that question. >The question is, when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: what to do with it? Should it be celebrated, flaws and all? Should it never be appreciated? I am objecting to the notion that you should do something different with the books described vs any other book.

>>11947 >In this book, Heinlein straightforwardly promotes a fascist, hyper-militarist form of government. It's a military novel lain. > I'm glad the movie made it look so stupid, because that was probably the best way to avoid people coming away with the wrong idea. Meanwhile the movie whitewashed the MC and removed a bunch of nuance that the book had. >The question is, when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: what to do with it? Should it be celebrated, flaws and all? Should it never be appreciated? It should be critiqued [but not discarded, otherwise you devolve into censorship because your ideological feelings were hurt.

>>11955 >You realize that [[carefully constructed premise supporting my argument in a loaded question]] >You agree, right? RIGHT? Man, I'm so damn tired of you idiots using this cheap, underhanded framing technique. The sooner people wise up to this bs the better! Thing is, EVERYTHING is contextual! Context matters! That's why for example in marxist literature the examples are always something simple like the manufacturing of a chair or table and not say a dirt pie, or some very complex task that can't be just broken down into smaller much more simpler steps that any fool can perform, like writing a decent book. For ffs even instruction manuals have to present you the context and conditions to which what to do or not to do. E.g. don't put your stupid hand into the machine if it's running! Where the context is the machine being in a state that would likely cost you your limb or even life. But then it might be perfectly fine to reach into the machine when it's off to for instance do maintenance or change some settings. So do you see that actions can be sensible in some circumstances but disastrous in others? And if you end up with the situation which the movie skimmed over or skipped that required such a type of government. Particularly when libshit ideas on how to raise children led to a meaning crisis, crime waves, violence and gangs being prevalent, in addition to being attacked by an entire race of commie space bugs then it's plausible why a civilization would opt for the formation of a terran federation. And looking at how things are going right now, we seem only to be missing the space bugs for that, which would explain the new gained recent popularity of this book. Even the aesthetics of the movie does which tried to lampoon it. Yankee-doodle! >>11956 >OP isn't asking whether the book should be derezzed, the question is much more expansive than your answer. The first thing to do is to practice empathy. And I mean by that the ability to see something from another person's perspective and understand where they're coming from, without necessarily agreeing with them. Something that people who talk about "problematic books" usually are not capable of. If you are doing any intellectual work, you can't just hyperfocus on the one single theory you like. You need to know and understand all the alternatives. By that point you would know where each has its particular flaws, including your own stance and preference. But at this point there would be no need to talk about books being "problematic" because we would have a good idea about which has some merit and which is just junk. I've struggled with the idea of free distribution of ideas after I've learnt that the books the nazis were burning was all this sexualwissenshaft stuff and then seeing how now we're transing kids. These were with little doubt harmful books. But then again, it's still just books. It's information and findings that could still be of use. Like aviation and transportation engineering still referencing dr. Mengele's research to what the true limits of the human body are, since obviously they can't do these kinds of experiments themselves (aside of blowing up corpses that have been donated to science). Books, knowledge and information should be free to distribute. Of any kind. But the true problematic thing is that this works only among people who are not easily taken in by ideas, because those ideas would have to compete with the vast collection of other ideas that they're already carrying. So from the looks of it, it's not for the common peasantry, nor for the narrow minded midwits who believe themselves as the intelligencia. To me this is a dilemma I'm having a difficult time to resolve. But maybe lax bans are a good idea actually so that the exchange of ideas and knowledge gets filtered to only those who are smart and nonconformist enough like it was back with the old www. But this requires the status quo and culture to not be completely retarded and sophists not trying to manipulate the masses for dumb and malicious reasons, which is currently not the case. There's many mind viruses out there (ideologies) that can captivate a person to a detrimental degree. Particularly those who are intelligent enough to be receptive to abstract thought yet too dumb to fully think those ideas through which they are presented with. And those who think they're way too clever to be parasitically captivated like that. The problem and danger with Starship Troopers and some of the fascist, "might makes right" literature is that it is the more logical and pragmatic to its alternatives. >>11961 >sage >where do you live? Hm..

>>11964 >Hm.. Oh, sorry! No reason to read too much into it. I was sincerely curious, but I didn't want to bump the thread needlessly for such a lowly question which didn't even have anything to do with the thread, so sage'd it. To reframe the question, would packages to EU area turn out astronomically expensive?

>>11955 >You realize that elements of the book's plot and setting were chosen to make the political views espoused in the book seem correct and justified in context, right? That's the entire problem everyone has with the book You do realize heinlein wrote more than one book, and in his other books his does the exact same thing only supporting: >polyandry >radical pacifism >radical love >socialism etc. etc. etc. it's almost like heinlein was a nuanced thinker who was willing to toy with multiple systems of cultural/political construction and admire the benefits and harms that each generates. >but they were undermined by the rest of the book, nobody would have any issue with it. Why do they need to be undermined? If the book really is a political argument, isn't the point of it to show us some neat ideas? If you think these are bad ideas, write your own damn book showing it. Just because you think something is bad, doesn't mean everybody else needs to write their books against it as well. >>11956 >Which do you prefer? Wasn't in the OP, so I didn't specify. Short answer is: depends on the society. >Also, OP isn't asking whether the book should be derezzed, the question is much more expansive than your answer. >>How should problematic books be approached, both individually as readers and collectively as society? >> The question is, when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: what to do with it? Should it be celebrated, flaws and all? Should it never be appreciated? I interpreted the last line to imply derezzing, either via literal ban or via verboten-ification (e.g: you can read mein kampf in the west, but you are forbidden from giving it any kind of positive feedback in public ever). >These "end of story" thought-terminating cliches are getting annoying. What more would you say? Can you call a society "free" that *doesn't* allow certain books to be read and discussed? Can you call a society "managed" that allows all books to be read and discussed without taboo? This is only a nuanced question if you want to pretend that a society can ban/censor/taboo certain books/ideas and still legitimately call itself free. >>11964 If you know any good methods for bookbinding that are easy to do, please share. There are some out of print books I'd like to do someday b/c physical copies are 100$+... >>11960 What do we mean by "hyper-militarist"? That the country has a modestly sized, functional military? That membership in the armed forces is required for citizenship? That members of the military are honored by the rest of society? Recall that it is perfectly possible in SST to be wealthy / successful / etc. without military service, the only perceived benefits are: - voting - ability to participate in government >>11964 Socrates (Protagoras): "But when you buy the wares of knowledge you can not carry them away in another vsesel; they have been sold to you, and you must take them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited by the lesson." I think total freedom of ideas is the ideal state. But this doesn't seem to be an ideal world.

>>11947 >The question is, when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: what to do with it? If it has enough merit and popularity to justify it, publish an annotated version which contains the original text unchanged along with footnotes and chapter prefaces that give appropriate context and factual corrections.

>>11966 >You do realize heinlein wrote more than one book, and in his other books his does the exact same thing only supporting: I'm quite aware. I chose Starship Troopers because it's one that supports arguments that i personally find repugnant. Again, I don't care if Heinlein was a bad person or whatever. That is beside the point. >Why do they need to be undermined? They don't. But the poster I was replying to was making the argument that the society depicted is very positive and its militarism makes sense in the context of the book. They seemed to be willfully ignoring that the book *is* making a political argument about the real world. Again, I don't know or care if Heinlein endorsed this argument for his whole life, but the book does argue for it. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress does something similar but it is much less on the nose and let's the reader come to more of their own conclusions about the moon society.

>>11968 >I chose Starship Troopers because it's one that supports arguments that i personally find repugnant. What if I or others don't find it repugnant? What if the books that you like I have an issue with? What if what's objectionable isn't really that objective and different people got different views? To me it looks like individual taste and morals are quite varied and subjective from person to person, group to group so how would we then select what books or ideas would be subject to the initial question of this thread? By some sort of majority? By some arbitrary type of standard or methodology? Spinning a roulette? Is it better to ban How to Kill a Mockingbird because it contains the word nigger despite teaching a lesson on racism and tolerance or a book that describes homosexual practices to grade schoolers because it offends religious communities or conservatives seeing it as an attempt at grooming children? And don't get me started on political literature! Looks like this makes OP's initial premise so much more complicated. >>11966 >"But when you buy the wares of knowledge you can not carry them away in another vsesel; they have been sold to you, and you must take them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited by the lesson." Good quote. Some people end up getting possessed by ideas and makes them spiral into madness while to others it's simply a form of entertainment. Some people get a basic existential realization and it completely devastates them, making them depressed for months or even longer or worse they hurt themselves and or others. While to others this was obvious and they just chug along. Different people interpret and process information differently, have different priorities, are either able to see something from a distance and as it is while others aren't even receptive to it or completely misunderstand it and form a diametrically opposed conclusion from the same exact source material. Limiting access to information, philosophies and ideas or freely allowing all distribution, both seem to require some sort of ideal conditions. But since as you say these aren't present, and I agree, neither option seems viable, thus what do?

>>11965 >>11966 >If you know any good methods for bookbinding that are easy to do, please share. There are some out of print books I'd like to do someday b/c physical copies are 100$+... lol that was someone else. I haven't posted other than the one time in this thread. So, I did have a thread in DIY, but I think it fell off the back a few years ago. Honestly, it's not hard to learn. You just need to learn to do some stitching, buy some waxy thread, an awl, a needle, and a bone folder. A plank of wood can help with a 25 pound weight on it, too. Incidentally, flour and water is a wonderful paste for the cover, so it's VERY cheap and lasts forever. There's plenty of guides, with pictures and/or videos, online. It's a simple thing, just practice it a handful of times before you jump in with expensive materials

Whether a book is problematic or not, I'll celebrate the books that align with my views. I don't celebrate the ones that don't and i will oppose the people that genuinely do on that subject. and because the subject of banning books as been brought up, no i don't think it deserves a ban. >>11954 >i can tell you've never even read moon is a harsh mistress or stranger in a strange land what do you expect from some retard that is engaging in a discussion of a book he should have already read years ago lmao

>>11970 >What if I or others don't find it repugnant? That's up to you I guess. Is there any book that advocates for something you find repugnant, so that the discussion can advance rather than focusing on a single book? >what is objectionable is not objective To a point, I agree with you. I think it is possible for something to be inherwntly immoral, like child pornography or advocacy in favor of child pornography. However, this discussion is not about those types of books. That's why I picked a good book like Starship Troopers.

Idk why I saged, have a bump. Idk why I saged, have a bump. Idk why I saged, have a bump.

>>11967 I like this idea. In the specific example of Starship Troopers there isn't really any factual inaccuracy to correct, but a thoughtful preface would be good. I think for something with more references to real-world events it could be very good though.

>>11947 I think you misunderstand heinlein to a great extent. Not to fanboy for him, but Starship Troopers, he has clarified was meant to imply that the only members of society who should have a say in policy are those who are explicitly involved. In essence, that politics should be an exclusive privileged only for those who are willing to contribute to it. In many ways, this is akin to anarchism. He also clarified that in the world of star ship troopers, other service jobs like teachers were just as valid. For some background, whether for better or worse, Heinlein was a proud military officer, and a scientific mind. His views of the world were often optimistic and idealistic, while occasionally neglecting the nuances of ordinary society. The book is also based in a world where Earth is at conflict with an extraterrestrial threat, and military order is the main means of countering it. The movie was essentially a parody of the book. Unfortunately it's easy to see many of what you might call "problematic books" for what they are presenting on the surface. I think that there are poorly written books and well written books, but the reader must identify what the message is, and if that message is logical. For example, saying that Mein Kampf is "problematic" is really irrelevant. It's a political manifesto and a vision of society, not to mention a biography. >The question is, when the text itself is problematic, yet has merit: What is meant by having merit is determined by your moral values and system of ethics. That means that any book can be inherently problematic, and anything can have merit. Even basic children's books or satire can be problematic if interpreted incorrectly. >what to do with it? Like >>11948 said, either read them, or don't I would say read them because it allows you to decide for yourself, instead of asking grok or chatgpt or reddit what you should think. >Should it be celebrated, flaws and all? If it's good writing, then why acknowledge it as such. You don't need to celebrate books. In fact, what does "celebrating" a book even mean? >Should it never be appreciated? You should appreciate well written literature, and not praise poor literature, encouraging low effort works undermines the significance of hard work and careful and complex thought. Think of the way that "liking" everything on social media saturates the web and diminishes the value of effort. Think of people now who have hundreds of books that they "author" by having chatGPT generate walls of text, some of which are critically acclaimed by readers who can't properly read a book. I also feel like this is more of an American issue, because most other countries recognize the value of free and uninhibited literature.

>>11978 >he has clarified I wasn't aware he spoke on the subject at all, but his intentions with the book aren't really material. In the book, it's explicitly military service that gets you access to civil society. The only teachers we see, I think, are ex-soldiers. All the politicians are soldiers or ex-soldiers. >That means that any book can be inherently problematic, and anything can have merit. Somehow "everything is subjective" is not a very satisfying answer in ethics. >In fact, what does "celebrating" a book even mean? awards, being listed as a "classic", getting recommended to students (not to study, just to read), uncritical reviews, etc. To be clear, I don't think Starship Troopers' status is undeserved. But It is very narrow-minded to imagine that the totality of this question can be boiled down to whether an individual person should read a book. >I also feel like this is more of an American issue, because most other countries recognize the value of free and uninhibited literature. America has by far the strongest free speech laws in the world. You're absolutely tripping.

>>11974 >That's up to you I guess. Not really if someone else's subjective opinion is imposed onto me on what I should be allowed to read, speak and think. And while this might even seem sensible if you happen to agree on the selection of the restrictions and many works frankly not being suitable for the masses, this is also how you end up with stagnation and decay. Lysenkoism for instance was only able to prevail for a while because it was enforced by an iron fist and any sane and honest biologist, botanist and farmer had to bite their tongue or risking "disappearing". And even then they would be getting the blame for not implementing those approved teachings "correctly". There's simply no winning if you can't express yourself freely. >>11979 >Somehow "everything is subjective" is not a very satisfying answer in ethics. We can get into the weeds about evolutionary game theory and emergent morality all we want but the decision for what is considered "problematic" will remain subject to subjectivity and team sports based machiavellianism. >>11967 >>11976 Can't wait for the reprint of George Orwell's 1984 edited by the UK government.. >Note: While war is not actually peace, it might be beneficial to send certain problematic individuals to fight each other in order to maintain domestic harmony. >>11978 >In essence, that politics should be an exclusive privileged only for those who are willing to contribute to it. You see how this might upset some people?

>>11980 >Not really if someone else's subjective opinion is imposed onto me on what I should be allowed to read, speak and think. Yes yes, you're so oppressed. >but the decision for what is considered "problematic" will remain subject to subjectivity and team sports based machiavellianism. You're writing as if ethics does not exist, but you are also implicitly making ethical critiques of me. Please stop with this. You have some ethical norms you think are correct, yes? The topic is what you think people who agree with your ethical norms should do about books which violate those norms, yet have literary merit. How should they approach it individually and how should they approach it if they are, say, or a publisher doing a reprint, or a book reviewer, or a teacher, or just recommending a book to a friend? I had *assumed* Starship Troopers would be the sort of thing that people don't have emotional, knee-jerk reactions to, or feel the need to soapbox about like in the "Breasts and Eggs" thread, because it's so universally well regarded and the criticisms anyone has of it are so mild, and literally nobody has proposed its censorship (except, of course, authoritarian governments). I suppose I was wrong, and I should have tried to come up with some book that would be maximally triggering to as many people as I could so we could have a proper flame war. That's what you people like anyway. >Can't wait for the reprint of George Orwell's 1984 edited by the UK government.. >>Note: While war is not actually peace, it might be beneficial to send certain problematic individuals to fight each other in order to maintain domestic harmony. Footnotes aren't editing, but yes, this would be unfortunate. It would also be unfortunate if people read a great book like The Idiot without the historical context that Dostoyevsky was sentenced to death and spared at the last minute by the Tsar. Otherwise they might believe that his opinions on the death penalty are uninformed.

>>11947 >problematic novels You're the problem, OP.

>>11981 >Yes yes, you're so oppressed. Are you? Can you state exactly how the existence and its availability of Heinlein's Starship Troopers is oppressing you. Or any other supposedly "problematic" books and literature? Point on this doll where it butt-hurt you. >You're writing as if ethics does not exist Well, and you're writing as if moral subjectivists and opportunists don't exist. If you were intelligent you could've inferred from my previous post that I am open to the idea of an objective morality, but I doubt you would be able to describe a good basis for it, nor by what standard something ought to be deemed as "problematic". And OPs entire premise falls apart on the basis that different people would define a different standard for it. >What to do about something I don't like but it seems to have some merit? You learn the most from people you disagree with, if only you listen. And then weight that against your own values to see if you can synthesize something better than either. >I should have tried to come up with some book that would be maximally triggering Likely this would have made the thread even more uncivil and akin to a dumpster fire. Possibly derailing it for good, like if you had picked Mein Kampf, das Kapital, or Donald Trump's "The Art of the Deal". The problem was not the book itself but choosing something that is fairly universally at least decently regarded and calling it "problematic", whatever that even means, and thus setting the bar for what ought to be at the fringes of societal norms, in OP's opinion, very low and too close to the bottom. While at the same time there's some rather controversial reading material, albeit for other reasons, taught in some schools today. It indicates the lack of understanding that their personal moral judgement is not at all absolute. The reason why it got the responses that it got was precisely because there's plenty of people who do not consider it being "problematic", do you follow? >It would also be unfortunate if people read a great book like The Idiot without the historical context Sure and many reprints already come with a chapter long foreword so all of this would not only be superfluous but higly irritating to try to read a book with some Karen's red pen on every page, doesn't matter what you call it. Besides that, I don't even know why you get this defensive and upset? While I on the other hand have seen many times where this kind of sentiment leads to, where some people prefer tearing down Chesterton's fence over just growing a thicker skin and develop some intellectual professionalism rather than to not try to hurt anyone's feelings by accident, supposedly. And in my view the resulting downsides of that outweigh the potential good by far.

>>11983 >Are you? No >Well, and you're writing as if moral subjectivists and opportunists don't exist. I know they exist, I just don't take their viewpoint seriously when it comes to ethical discussions. >If you were intelligent you could've inferred from my previous post that I am open to the idea of an objective morality I'm aware, but you and others are focusing on moral relativism as a justification for why the topic is empty. >And OPs entire premise falls apart on the basis that different people would define a different standard for it. No it doesn't. Which books are considered "problematic", or what makes that criterion, were never considered in the OP, and it's completely immaterial to the question. Starship Troopers is taken as an example of something that *I* think *could* be considered problematic. You can have entirely different opinions of what books are problematic (apparently you do), but that doesn't make much of a difference IMO. Is it really just that I used the word "problematic"? I use the term "problematic" because it is very accurate: I don't think it's a bad book, I don't think it's an evil book or that it should be derezzed. I think you need to read it critically to get the most out of it, and I don't like some of the arguments that are made in the book. How else could that be phrased easily in English? Also, I think the discussion makes way more sense when it's about fiction/autobiography type works, because there's not much of a reason to think highly of a nonfiction book if you believe it's incorrect. Maybe there is, if it's an 'important book'. >>What to do about something I don't like I like Starship Troopers, I just think it has some themes and arguments that would behoove me to have a talk with my son if he read it at a young age. >Besides that, I don't even know why you get this defensive and upset? It's annoying when people seem to *really* want this thread to be about a different topic.

as of recently i see too many commie treads on here. wounder what they try to achieve here.

>>11985 This might come as a shocker to you, but cyberpunk is a genre with deep leftist roots. You're the anomaly here.

>>11986 meh, dont care how u try to bend and justify. The site has seen better than this.

>>11984 In case you are an ESL, "problematic" is used as a dog-whistle to mean "should be censored / outcast / verboten / etc." in the the modern leftist western dialogue. If you DON'T mean it this way, then please stop using it, since that is probably causing 30% of the arguments in this thread. >>What to do AS A SOCIETY about books we don't agree with ethically? In a free society: nothing. In a managed state: manage them as best we can. Maybe censoring, maybe secretly altered re-prints, etc. I dunno, I'm not big on state-slavery so I'm not gonna give you any ideas. >>What to do AS AN INDIVIDUAL about books we don't like ethically? Talk to people about them. >>Why are ppl so assmad about starship troopers? Probably because it is 100% innocuous to everyone, and I have no idea what issue a sane person would take with it. Seriously, what is wrong with the ideas he espouses? Literally an egalitarian, skill-driven, effort-rewarding society with near-zero crime, no racism/classism/etc., healthy economy, social mobility, etc. etc. The only critique I can see is that it is FAR too optimistic about breaking down racial/ethnic tensions and about the guys on top not fuarking the hole thing. But that certainly doesn't require a "talk with my son" like it's a book saying women love being raped and niggers are meant for the rope. >>11985 inevitable creep of poltards of all stripes into lainchan a while ago it was unnuanced dumbrights now the unnuanced dumblefts are following when can we say fuark it all and get back to loving lain and cozy uncle ted lain chan tier list: >Lain >Uncle Ted >Ecofascism >The rest of the slop >>11986 >my fellow gays, i swear this place was always full of lowbrow leftoids, liek 4 realziez

>>11980 >Can't wait for the reprint of George Orwell's 1984 edited by the UK government.. This but unironically. Reading bad faith government propaganda is incredibly entertaining. I somewhat see your point, but the OP's question is what they should do if they feel a piece of literature is worthy of study but "problematic" and good faith annotations are one endeavor to pursue. Bad faith actors will always exist. At a point you have to hope that reason and good faith will prevail, and that making good faith contributions to the discourse will shift opinion in the correct direction. Not caring is also highly effective in the many cases where the problematic thing doesn't actually matter. >>11988 I suggest using problématique so people know you're having fun with it.

>>11988 the site seems progressively worse. Let alone the lack and inert-full speed of /λ/ . Which should be defining for lainchan. Instead there is marxists running around turning the place into a soykafhole with their discussions.

>>11985 Recently? Are you new here? Picrel is literally the banner at the top of this page right now. And if you haven't figured out that cyberpunk is a dystopian critique of alienation in capitalist society, then I have no idea how you found your way to /lit/.

>>11979 IIRC it was in an interview where someone pointed out that he is explicit about the military service part, and he said that was just a catch all,the military also fulfills a lot of other classical roles of civil service that are not explicitly laid out in the book. Essentially it was "bad writing" that caused that perception. In Starship Troopers, the military handles both the combat roles and civil management roles, so by "joining up" you could be assigned as a civil servant, Doctor, or other public serving job, and not just going to fight the bugs. >“Veteran” does not mean in English dictionaries or in this novel solely a person who has served in military forces. I concede that in commonest usage today it means a war vet- eran…but no one hesitates to speak of a veteran fireman or a veteran school teacher. In STAR- SHIP TROOPERS it is stated flatly and more than once that nineteen out of twenty veterans are not military veterans. Instead, 95% of voters are what we call today “former members of federal civil service.” [ellipses and emphasis in the original] Also Heinlein was traditionally more libertarian than facist by any accounts. Which it sounds like OP can't grasp. >>11985 You realize that most countercultures are not American conservative right wing? You may find this hard to believe, but progressive liberal left wing ideals by their definition go against the status quo by trying to change for the subjective better future, while conservative view try to inhibit the change by definition.

>>11986 >>12000 But if that's so, then why is the good pill in the Matrix red, which means Republican in America? But seriously, it really has to be all team sports with you people, right? Blade Runner is getting memed by the right because it's a genre addressing deep issues about the human condition and its future, not just for the occasional anti capitalist drivel. >>11985 Maybe bunkerchan is down for today. >wounder what they try to achieve here. Probably to claim turf. >>11999 They don't have the home advantage here so just call out their retardation and ridicule them with quality posts and they retreat to lick their wounds at their raid Discord. I know political debates are totally mega cringe and all but with this info war we can't have nice things. And the sane and functional quirky just can never cede ground to the narcissists and cult members. That's to say, Lainchan has its natural Become Ungovernable types but those are fine and cool and not the subject of this post. It's the people who thought they could just go and leave their little hug box only to then face bewilderment when the peasant mushroom farmers reject their revolutionary message of gay space communism and the lame version of the Borg. >>12001 He basically described a junta government that formed in response to a progressive liberal society going full Clockwork Orange. Honestly I could see this happening and people cheering it on as well. And yes, there's the option to serve through some unpleasant civil service and not just by fighting the bugs. Kindof like in some places with mandatory military service, just that it's also voluntary. And I think the idea was why this isn't devolving into some war lord soykafshow is because the people in those roles had to prove their willingness to sacrifice for mankind instead of just some lawyers who never had to leave the safety of their cushy office, plus needing the approval of anyone else who served and risked likewise. Also evil space bugs as a common and existential enemy. Heinlein even added a remote space colony of pacifists who eventually got utterly assraped by the bugs. Thus I suppose making the point that you better be a well oiled military machine if you happen to find yourself amidst a galactic war. >>11984 >Is it really just that I used the word "problematic"? As >>11988 already pointed out you must have either lived under a rock. That or you're just playing dumb, seeing that OP explicitly made the judgement call that Starship Troopers is "hateful or repugnant" so I'm not sure how you can say that >Which books are considered "problematic", or what makes that criterion, were never considered in the OP I've seen this playbook too many times. I already have to go to obscure corners of the web just to be able to think aloud. I'm so sick and tired of these busy bodies limiting and censoring what I can discuss and I suspect that you aren't here in good faith either. Possibly trying to astroturf the idea here that it's normal to blanket declare some things "problematic" even if they are mostly inoffensive. >It's annoying when people seem to *really* want this thread to be about a different topic. I believe this thread already answered ad nauseam what to do so you can go home now. >that would behoove me to have a talk with my son if he read it Son, we need to talk why you have American Psycho, Nietsche, Evola and the complete collection of Bionicle Chronicles on your bookshelf. >also digits are literally 1984 Lol. >>11988 >like it's a book saying women love being raped You mean 50 Shades of Gray? >and niggers are meant for the rope. Oh, Turner Diaries depending on what you mean by niggers. >>11997 >I suggest using problématique L' maoù!

>>11988 We should have an ecofascism thread. Solarpunk with a twist. Can we consider a bureaucraticcryptofascism like the EU with it's net 0 policy as one.

>>12002 > complete collection of Bionicle Chronicles on your bookshelf. after that bionicles porn thread on /k/, i'm realizing i might need to have a talk with my son. >>like it's a book saying women love being raped >You mean 50 Shades of Gray? yeah i probably wouldn't let my child read that its gross doesn't mean i'd try to project that idea onto a free society. >Oh, Turner Diaries depending on what you mean by niggers. probably good to tell your kid not to repeat what he read if you live in the not-actually-free west again, doesn't mean the book should be censored or suppressed in a free society. >>12003 we used to have one it was cozy. so far all i've seen of solarpunk is fuuarkin f4ggoty soykaf i went into the solarbunk thread with such high hopes and its such a soykafshow >Can we consider a bureaucraticcryptofascism like the EU with it's net 0 policy as one. no, because net 0 is not actually about ecofriendliness. its about sustaining massive cityhives and avoiding long-term instability that would put globalist ideals at risk. Reducing the biosphere to 10 billion people eating bugs+rice, recycling poop, and living in durable housing on green energy is not "environmentally friendly". Imo ideal ecofascist state is exclusively rural with microindustry for defense infrastructure, high-efficiency farming to maximize untouched forests/wetlands, etc. etc. Think more: meshnet of villages with just enough tech to make invading miserable (e.g: every family must own and maintain 10 suicide drones) and poor enough to make it not worthwhile (e.g: no luxury goods, no big industrial stuff to steal). >>12000 >>> only marxists are against the state blah blah blah take your candy-ass someplace else.

>12002 It's the people who thought they could just go and leave their little hug box only to then face bewilderment too bad i dont have a screenshot, but early this day i had the pleasure to read about lain being feminist on here. thread gone now.

>>12004 >after that bionicles porn thread on /k/ You must agree, there was some creative use of Lego parts. >untouched forests/wetlands Little to none of that left here. Hitler was right. >probably good to tell your kid not to repeat what he read if you live in the not-actually-free west Ngl I had to check twice when I read a news headline about a "dangerous lamp post movement" taking place. Turned out people were just putting up some flags. >>12005 Oh, I've seen that one! What a doozie! A bit sad that mods had to wake up this early today, but someone has to scub the cheese pizza off the main timeline after all. But truly incredible how these people manage to pick the worst examples for thair cause. I still love LAin tho. And need to reduce everyone to their mere genital parts while the wired would transcend those notions. Looks like they haven't even watched SEL. >>11999 >1999 Forgot to say, nice PSX core. Is there more of that?

>>12002 >>12002 >But if that's so, then why is the good pill in the Matrix red, which means Republican in America? Bruh. I know I know, this adds nothing to the discussion and mods will most likely delete this post, but this little gem can not be left unnoticed.

>>11950 Good early post. Honestly, society doesn't even need to be particularly comfortable (in terms of luxuries) to treat this issue, it mostly needs to work towards reducing alienation, and broadening people's understanding of the world. Saddening to see user/s like >>11948 >>11954 angrily derailing into non-sequitur accusations of book-banning, as if that's what the thread is about, or even on-topic. Don't spill the lentkaf. >>12004 >>>> only marxists are against the state No-one suggested anything close to that. In fact, no-one in this reply chain even mentioned Marx or Marxism at all, you're hallucinating! >>12002 >But seriously, it really has to be all team sports with you people, right? Not at all. I personally believe "left-right" is nonsense anyway. Those posts are replying to someone who is trying to make divisions by pretending "commies" haven't always been part of lainchan, cyberpunk, or early hacker culture, for that matter. The only thing team-sporty about vulgar commies is class analysis, which most likely puts you on our team.

[^] The accusation of "team sports with you people" is especially funny, considering the first reply in this thread is literally doing exactly that.

>>12008 > screenshot that line always made me giggle

>how can I justify censorship Man this place is not what it was like 8 or 9 years ago. This place used to be full of sensitive and intelligent people. Lain crossed over into semi-mainstream awareness, and all of the cultural marxist trans people latched onto it and ended up here. Not even hating, I have gender dysphoria myself, but I chose not to transition because I don't like being associated with the porn addicted psychos who all wear the same uniform and have been brainwashed into all having the same low-brow, trash political opinions. Most trans people unfortunately are the most autistic/male, porn-addicted people I have ever come across. I know one other person like me (met them in a study I participated for intersex/trans people) and they felt the same way, that is to say never transitioned because of association with the absolute dregs of society that are 99% of "trans" (porn-addicted autistic males) people. Starship Troopers is kino btw. You don't have to agree with something to enjoy. The majority of people who watch or read it don't put down the book/remote and become whatever boogeyman you've created in your head.

>>11985 I've been here on and off since 2017. My rant here >>12013 pretty much sums it. Unfortunate truth. This place actually used to be great, but now it's just a hugbox these people. >>11948 Based oldLain dabbing on nu-Lain retards who think this is their antifa(g) hangout.

>>11947 Say what you want about starship trooper but their solution to youth violence, which only exist because there is no consequences for their action, was to apply the law to minors as well. And it worked. Our reality is worse. The guy wrote a fiction which in his mind was a dystopia and we get worse. Of course I don't want to be stabbed by someone who have legal immunity, why would I?

>>12009 yeah, im not sure the exact year i started visiting here but i remember when we were talking about net neutrality before the first trump presidency and thinking about how lainchan anons take really strong often admirable stances but it rarely ever translates to real life in the same way. i don't get mad about it because hey what can you do, but reading this thread while thinking about who shows up to protect libraries from censorship reminded me of that.

>>11947 If you can't enjoy a little fascism or a little communism in the safety of a work of fiction, above all else I just feel bad for you. It's called fun.

>>12018 >The guy wrote a fiction which in his mind was a dystopia That's the exact opposite of reality. He was writing his vision of utopia. It worked in the book because he thought it was a good idea, not the other way around. >>12339 I mean, starship troopers is a good book. It's food for thought. But it's important to acknowledge when a work of fiction has an ideological aim, it's not neutral. If you need me to bothsides it, The Dispossessed is the same way.

>>11968 >I'm quite aware. I chose Starship Troopers because it's one that supports arguments that i personally find repugnant. >Again, I don't care if Heinlein was a bad person or whatever. That is beside the point. Honestly though its been a while since I read a lot of his things, heinline is basically a libertarian and to the extent that he's not an anarchist he's a republican, which is the libertarian's preferred form of government. Starship troopers is fundamentally a libertarian republic book, you have an explicit societal contract that you can opt into, (or not and live actually a pretty nice life as a freeman), in which you enslave yourself to the societal will voluntarily for a period and in exchange you are welcomed into the citizen body later. Though obviously the book is about military action its very carefully representing a world where a substantial fraction, even a strong majority as I recall, of the service is non military. Like all libertarians he believes in complete sexual depravity, this should surprise no one, and this book isnt exceptional in that area its just less in your face about it, and less depraved than nowadays. To the extent that its about an existential threat, its written in the year 1959 when the US was, many argued and probably rightly, dealing with a massive existential threat that proposed to destroy if not our lives then at least our lifestyle, and our relatively republican, relatively libertarian, system of government. And quite a few people were proposing that we roll over on our bellies and bare our necks. >no one mentioning the anime, so much talk of the movie The anime was actually pretty decent, better depiction of the fights which are actually very cool, but less about the political technology. Sort of the premise of the book is that infantry has developed to the point where the average infantry man is basically a fighterpilot, moving very fast in hops and working over a pretty huge amount of territory concurrently in what I know some people have called the literal first example of power armor. Lots of nukes, a lot cooler than the live action movie, not to say its a bad movie.

>>12340 >But it's important to acknowledge when a work of fiction has an ideological aim, it's not neutral which works of fiction are neutral and non ideological, exactly ? Cause acknowledging the blisteringly obvious is, while maybe useful in certain cases rather tedious for many of us.

Starship Troopers would have a better chance at actually working than any of the crackpot ideas from Startrek. Even when given replicator technology which is basically magic, they still just used it to extort other planets with access to it. Humanity is supposed to be some sort of gay space communism but we mostly ever get to see the adventurous exploits of their starfleet, interstellar recon missions that just by their nature are going to be exciting, which would starkly differ from the reality of a regular citizen or subject of their United Federation. Meanwhile even during a war with an alien space bug race, Earth seems safe and a worthwhile place to be in, where people believe in some sort of greater cause, and duty to their fellow men. A desire inherent to many, a norm before before the modern age, and the present lack thereof fueling the rise of the far right. And compared to any actual war time historically, people still get to enjoy freedom of expression and choice, despite the existential threat humanity is facing. From comparing just the two, Startrek seems more repugnant to me and I'd rather do my part than be where no man has gone before. After all, any work of science fiction is about the author exploring their personal politics and views. It's the whole genre, beginning with Asimov extrapolating his ideas to what could happen with those in a scenario where mankind is given fantastic technology and space travel. Due to tackling unknown unknowns, SciFi will always be biased one way or another. Repugnance is hence subjective to the personal sensibilities of the reader and you need to be mentally an adult to approach these works. >>12341 >he believes in complete sexual depravity Tbf I have no idea what Heinlein was up to in his past time, nor do I really care since it couldn't have been much worse than Viola, or your regular western elite or muslim british resident. Besides this whole western catholic prudishness is not as much of a virtue as you think it is. Because what ends up happening is a society where small faux pas are are strongly and often publicly and collectively castigated while serious transgressions and abuse are wholly ignored. It's where you have to make sure not to accidentally have your eyes wander in the wrong direction and be ashamed of the human shape all while just down the street Neo Sodom is taking place with hedomaxing weirdos showing their STD infested dicks to kids. It's where parents are too embarrassed and emotionally weak to tell their children about the basic functions and duties of their body so they let some stranger at the public school do it. It's easier to have your son circumcised than to just tell him to wash his dick. This whole holier than thou stance is just sexual repression that comes out at the other end as AIDS. It's the helplessness and impotence in a society operating on shame and evil getting away with evil that makes you desire to micromanage your neighbor to compensate for it. It leads to both extremes and excesses in place of a sane middle ground and acceptance of our biological nature. >>11947 >the movie made it look so stupid The movie made it look pretty kino. And even it is touching on how the Terran Federation came to be, where the opposite to its "fascism", a sort of Junta which somehow values both responsibility and individualism, was formed due to lawlessness, chaos and random violence becoming prevalent due to modern liberal policies and cowardice. A scenario which doesn't seem that far fetched, now that western city centers are turning into PVP zones and anarcho tyranny not being just some conspiracy theory any more.

>>12343 >After all, any work of science fiction is about the author exploring their personal politics and views. Not any more than any other genre, and you can certainly write a book that isn't trying to convince the reader of something.

>>12342 Is it so blisteringly obvious? People have made the point multiple times in this thread that "the society in starship troopers works out in the book, so it must be good". One poster even said they thought it was supposed to be a dystopia but the author couldn't make it look bad. Media literacy is not something that every reader and especially not every movie goer has. Just look at how people have misinterpreted Dune.

>>12345 I've seen arguments about for instance politics where the author is clearly arguing one conclusion but the evidence even that they present to me clearly leads to a different conclusion entirely. Authorial intent is obviously always present, and even when the author is not trying to make a particular argument, the authors ideological inclination and worldview are present. That does not mean that the argument is compelling or even well done, and sometimes they do a terrible job at arguing. Starship Troopers the movie is a classic example of this. The director allegedly wanted a sort of parody (though I think he thinks war is cool) that just makes the whole society and stuff look absurd and comical. Yet a large chunk of the audience think that it does the opposite and makes the society look cool and the characters heroic. This isn't a failure by the audience, but a failure by the filmmaker assuming parody was his intent. Doesnt mean his authorial intent, his argument and worldview aren't present, the argument just falls flat and the evidence presented doesn't paint the picture he thinks it does.

It’s already been said but information should free and available for all. If a books ideas are so backwards and wrong then they will surely be struck down in the marketplace of ideas. As starship troopers has been. It’s up to you as the individual reader to agree or disagree with the written word. Censorship does not stop ideas it just creates social resentment.

>>12347 Suppose your 13 year old son is reading Starship Troopers or The Dispossessed, both very political books that are making an argument as much as they are telling a story. Do you think he, a person with limited experience in the world, should be left alone to come to his own conclusions, or do you think that you as a parent have a responsibility to have a conversation about what those books are about and how they are right and wrong?

>>12350 I personally would be very proud to see my son taking an interest in literature, exposing himself to different views and philosophies, expanding his perspectives, and learning to think critically. It's disappointing, but not unsurprising, to see advocates of censorship jump to the "think of the children" emotional non-argument. Especially in the modern day, when the ability to think critically is at it's most important, the point of view that we should suppress speech not rigidly in line with liberal democratic orthodoxy has absolutely zero legitimacy, and it's dangerous, totalitarian, and most damningly, uncreative to suggest that we must tell people how to think. Especially people at a formative age, when it is most important to develop the ability to critically evaluate things. Teenagers are also at that age where it's important for you, as a parent, to take a step back and allow them space to develop as individuals (and every teenager I ever knew hated it when their parents were heavy-handed with their lives, and loved it when they would 'butt out') If you were rigidly orthodox and dogmatic enough to sit down with your children and tell them that their new book is "wrong and full of dangerous ideas" then, far from cultivating a healthy, inquisitive mind, they'll probably resent you for it and think you're a hysterical weirdo. This is basically the modern equivalent of not letting your kid read Harry Potter because you're scared it will turn him into a satan worshiper, and has the same total lack of merit as an argument it did then.

>>12350 maybe he shouldn't be left to make his own conclusions about the world in any case, likewise if he's reading harry potter or any other book.

>>12351 You assume that young people would automatically be reading critically, but many *adults* don't. People don't learn critical thinking on their own. It needs to be taught like any other skill. You, as a parent, need to put in work to make that happen. You have to challenge their views, ask them probing questions.

I wonder how this thread would have turned out differently if the OP had cited a book that has a gay main character instead.

>>12355 probably that the user books should be burned

There isn't a way to engage with problematic materials without having to solve problems. If the whole of society engages with problematic materials we can expect those problems to be realized on a societal scale. Starship Troopers could be taught in public classrooms - but only if you expect public teachers to be good at their jobs. With the expectation of public school teachers being bad at their jobs, well. When I was in junior high through early high school, our English classes assigned the Holocaust sequence of nonfiction. 8th grade, "The Diary of Anne Frank." 9th through 10th grade, "All but My Life" and "Farewell to Manzanar." This is a good literary sequence in its correct order, though I despised it at the time. TDoAF and ABML particularly grated on me because, in an English language and literature class, we were reading a translation of continental language and an obvious ESL account. These books were not meant to serve the purpose of the classes in which they were taught. They were meant to culminate in Farewell to Manzanar as a prompt for reflection on the sins of American society and culture. Except that didn't happen. What happened was the educators' hamfisted efforts at reaching a correct conclusion prompted conformity in the girls, and resentment from the boys. I don't blame chuds and internet racism on the cramming of the holocaust sequence into English language and literature courses but I do not think it was particularly helpful in terms of building a more just and empathetic society. My own essay on Manzanar, after having my resentment built and empathy depleted by essentially one straight year of our lit books being back to back holocaust lit, had a thesis that "though there are both similarities and differences between the internment camps in America and the concentration camps in Europe, the differences are more important than the similarities." This was the edgiest thesis on the subject that anyone in our high school believed could be gotten away with. I was not morally improved by these books having been taught to me. Society as a whole is probably not better off for having a version of myself in it that went through these classes versus the hypothetical me who did not do so. Plugging the throats of young men with the language of virtue does not build virtuous men, any more than reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every day in elementary school builds patriotic adults. Confrontation with iniquity in the world becomes confrontation with the educator who is confronting you with said iniquity when one is forced by external obligation to endure this ritualized conflict through compulsory education. Independent self-enrichment is not better than directed study. "Starship Troopers" is one of Heinlein's juveniles. The hypothetical 13-year-old self you speak of reading it is the intended audience, the level at which the water is gauged. And for a 13 year old male who reads it on the one hand and is obligated and required by societal compulsion and parental expectation to complete the holocaust sequence in formal education on the other is unlikely to be morally improved by either experience, but will find darkly sweet seduction in one and only dust in Manzanar. In theory, if things were reversed, if the youth were to be taught Starship Troopers and independently discover the holocaust sequence in parallel, I think we would end up in that same situation. There's a video essay by Jacob Geller, "Why does everybody think 1984 agrees with them?" 1984's a book that we learn in the classroom, the first piece of fiction I got to receive after completing Manzanar. People do not walk away with dumb conclusions about the book for lack of public education or external direction. But they also would not fare any better if reading it at their own liberty. Just as 1984 is misappropriated by conservatives, the equally precisely aimed Fahrenheit 451 has been misappropriated by the television and new media and lib-progs the book is clearly railing against. And at the most extreme end, the most problematic dystopian novel, Kachikujin Yapoo, was misappropriated by none other than Yukio Mishima. There is nothing that could be addressed by improvement to anyone's media literacy. The filmmakers and television documentarians who talk about Fahrenheit 451 as though it were mere anti-censorship, a fig leaf presented by the author to keep himself presentable within their society, know full well how to understand why the book injects jingles for commercials for toothpaste into moments of psychic disintegration. Yukio Mishima knew exactly why Rin'ichiro Sebe was presented as a Kendo and Aikido champion. The seduction of evil does not require presentation as good, nor even as pleasure. It only requires a beat of desire for destruction, of self or of other, within the human heart. In the essay "Benefit of Clergy," George Orwell wrote: >And, after all, the worst crimes are not always the punishable ones. By encouraging necrophilic reveries one probably does quite as much harm as by, say, picking pockets at the races. One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dali is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other. The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. In the same way it should be possible to say, ‘This is a good book or a good picture, and it ought to be burned by the public hangman.’ Unless one can say that, at least in imagination, one is shirking the implications of the fact that an artist is also a citizen and a human being. This is frequently taken as a pro-censorship argument. And it is. The problem with anti-censorship arguments is that they tend to work backwards from their intended conclusion. A more mature anti-censorship author like Orwell is able to take the pro-censorship case seriously. But Orwell's ultimate conclusions rely on moral convenience; he reduces Dali's art to moral trifles, insubstantial and juvenile vacuities that hide their conventionality behind crassness. If censorship is to be avoided by virtue of triviality then the importance of art itself is diminished, entirely. Dali's wealth from the sale of his artistry becomes no more morally or socially meaningful than a lottery ticket or a successful act of speculation in the stock market. If you believe in the importance of art on a personal level and in the importance of the maintenance of social harmony then that's a much harder trick to pull off. Orwell's long relationship with Historical Materialism neatly pulled him entirely clear of that internal conflict. Ultimately if we find a kind of society that is proper and is correct, and find that art can reshape society, then the only conclusion is that a correct society will find some mechanism to censor art. in the case of Starship Troopers in particular, if we find that western liberalism is a proper and correct form of society, then ST will not be censored. Because it does not legitimately threaten western liberalism. Liberalism has historically been among the most militaristic forms of society, having invented modern compulsory military service as the fundamental requirement of citizenship with the first republic's Levee en Masse. However, we might find Fahrenheit 451 soft-censored by interpretive defanging and critical gaslighting about its deeply antimedia and antiliberal elements "really" meaning things that they clearly do not mean.

>>12371 >What happened was the educators' hamfisted efforts at reaching a correct conclusion prompted conformity in the girls, and resentment from the boys. happens so many times. I remember at one point we had to read Lord of the Flies. The teacher had many predetermined conclusions that we were supposed to take from the novel, about how humans can be evil, yadda yadda. She also had us read about the Zimbardo prison experiments. I found great pleasure in pointing out that the scenario of the novel, boys trapped on a remote island for several months, literally happened and they didn't kill each other at all. As well the prison "experiment" had absolutely zero scientific rigour, and Zimbardo's colorful account of what happened could hardly be considered lab notes. I probably would have been much more willing to engage in the points the teacher had to make if there was any indication that she welcomed dissent. Same in my economics class. Good teachers don't just tell you what to think, they invite you to defend your own stance or attack theirs. Only people who actually have beliefs that they have thought long and hard about can be good teachers. I was blessed to have a few good teachers in my public school.

>>12372 >Good teachers don't just tell you what to think, they invite you to defend your own stance or attack theirs Unfortunately good teachers seem to be as rare as a saint in a brothel these days. Not helped by the fact that, the modern education system is not a vehicle to teach people how to critically think, it is a factory which turns pupils into good, obedient citizens. When it's actually bothering to teach anything at all and not just being a node in the notorious school to prison pipeline. The fact that most educators are women exacerbates the problem of conformity. I do not hate women, but the statistical facts as they stand are that women are more prone to groupthink and less tolerant of dissent, and this colours their teaching style. They will be more focused on teaching pupils what to think, rather than how to think, and becoming enforcers of conformity among both the student body and the staff, to sniff out and destroy any trace of heterodoxy in the education system. Despite banging the critical thinking drum, most educators disincentivize critical thought and incentivize conformity. To our social betters, this is a feature, not a bug: people who are taught to conform are likely to be good taxpayers who do not ask difficult questions or confront the government or hold it accountable.

>>12373 Attempting to shape society through high school education seems like a very complicated task, because even though girls embrace conformity amongst themselves and prefer it in others in most ways, they don't seem to want it in partners. When I was in hs, I noticed that I received more positive attention from minority girls if I acted lowkey, or even high key, racist. If on the one hand a teacher offered me a cookie and an A for writing an antiracist essay and on the other a peer offered me a "no that's so bad" while laughing under her hand and a smile sometime the next week for making a grotesque racist joke in public, I ain't writing the essay.

>>12374 trying to force shape society in general is a complicated, slow and difficult task. But if you have a place where basically everyone is basically forced to go for literal indoctrination, it seems like one of the obvious places to start it. Of course if someone more skillful and subtle is shaping society elsewhere, you can expect it to percolate down to the hamfisted efforts of indoctrination by highschool teachers and textbook developers.

man I can't decide what part of this thread is worse. the op that is afraid of cheap sci-fi slop, the arts&crafts chud that has made it his personal harry potter, or the bunch of retards taking the "problematic" premise at face value if you're an adult, and you're reading novels, that's already bad, but if you manage to get radicalized by a piece of fiction... you must have a severe mental disability or something

>>12376 The premise is specifically that people who are not adults read novels which are not for adults. Thus novels that are not for adults, example provided being Starship Troopers, having the ability to be problematic since early to mid adulthood might carry the lesson of such a book. Now, we need to acknowledge on this subject that general education DOES work. Fahrenheit 451 would be a generally better example of an ideologically dangerous book, save that we teach that book in classrooms and teach it in such a way that students think Guy Montag's rant about abortions and divorce and male suicide and military deaths is just "wow that came out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the book haha have sex incel haha" rather than being the culmination of his character arc and presentation of the keystone of his society. This we have redoubled by taking >>11967's suggestion to heart and including a preface by the author claiming the book to be about direct censorship. By intentionally dulling every adolescent student's capacity to absorb ideologically dangerous substances we have saved technocratic democracy. And all it costs is those student's ability to comprehend plot, pacing, characterization, inductive reasoning, and direct statement. Small prices to pay for a future of fast cars and videodramas. There has been a great triumph of the modern education system by which we have managed to force Generation Z men to sit in a classroom, read the entirety of Fahrenheit 451 cover-to-cover, forced their eyes to absorb the statement that the public stopped reading long before the book burnings started, that the physical act of direct censorship was not the start of control but a final placation towards those controlled, and the only question they ever ask is "what did he mean by 'Little Black Sambo?' Was that racist? SHOULD we burn all the copies of Little Black Sambo?"

>>>/lit/12377 >oh all the right wing talking points are very convincing and true >it's REALLY GOOD that we dull the minds of people so they won't listen to it! >btw I'm gay and retarded because I'm WOKE you're too dumb to even parody correctly, you don't understand what the other side is saying, so you can't replicate it convincingly. you haven't fooled anyone, and the only thing anyone reading your post will get out of it is second hand embarrassment from the distance between your aspirations and your actual mental resources the reason even teenagers don't pay attention to whatever book you're talking about is because it is low-quality (boring), preachy, and that they are smart enough to discern the underlying message, and disagree with it. maybe they disregard it entirely because, if your point is really correct and convincing, you don't need 200 pages of fiction around it. case in point, imagine if science worked that way and every 10-page paper had to be embedded in some fast food genre literature another thing that could be going on is that the school board or some other authority wants to push right wing slop on the children, and so the contents are chosen on a political rather than didactic basis, and what ends up happening is that the kids don't even develop the skills to absorb the propaganda. that's probably a quirk of whatever education system you're talking about, in most of the world it is broadly understood that, to give people written propaganda, you have to first teach them to read, and then give them some reading comprehension and critical thinking skills in other words, if your system gives students right wing slop but fails to turn them into chuds, that's a failure of your school system, not of the students. it says more about your incompetence at indoctrinating, or even about the concept of "indoctrination" being fake, or it being a more subtle process than just throwing rants and grievances at people and expecting them to stick just because they sound right to you

>>12378 >replicate it convincingly >fooled anyone What a strange statement. When MIchael Moore named two separate documentaries after Fahrenheit 451 it was neither to own the chuds nor because the reference was culturally irrelevant. It was because it is taught as 1984's American cousin, and its weirdly insistent misogyny is thereby contextualized right alongside Winston Smith's which was explicitly constructed as intended by The Party. Bradbury seething at Moore's use of his title after compromising himself in his own preface for school editions of his book was very, very funny. If you really are so unfamiliar with the gap between what Fahrenheit 451 is and how it has historically been taught in public schools, then what has compelled you to argue that its resultant place in society is something that it visibly is not? Do you just find the idea of trying to quickly look up and learn about the social consensus interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 in societies in which it is taught in public schools to be irrelevant to a thread about socially responsible means of handling problematic literature?

>I can't contest your point >but check these very quirky wholesome factoids! epic comeback. consider me debunked

>>12380 'kay, guess you actually want this to be the conversation. >oh all the right wing talking points are very convincing and true Neither implied nor stated. All of Bradbury's well-known fringe right wing political talking points and tendencies including the glaringly obvious but rarely publicly discussed racism in that book were instead brought up in order to establish why Fahrenheit 451, taught in public schools as part of Common Core, is exactly the problematic book that Starship Troopers is not. To bang on this repetition again, ST believes in the benefits of progress, including technological progress and racially egalitarian social progress, but F451 believes that progress is a word for infantilization and particularly the technological infantilization of society will amplify infantilization of racial minorities and women in particular. The deliberate villainization of women and alienization of minorities throughout the book is is something that ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY woke critics of the book have been willing to point out. Since you are obviously unfamiliar with the matter I have to be the one to inform you that Conservatives tend to squirm on that subject to the point of cutting out the book's text. It is specifically more conservative and christian school districts which redact entire passages from its pages on account of its racial insensitivity as though it were accident rather than essence, and only the most woke school districts that try to frame the conversation around it. So even if you were to be correct that the purpose of that post is to make woke critics look gay and retarded, you would be wrong about the previous two points, because the argument would then have to be that the book's racism and sexism which woke critics and exclusively woke critics say should be surfaced and analyzed in the classroom aren't real, and that the manner in which a conservative education system generally approaches the text is fine, instead of arguing that the woke argument points are valid and that students are rendered insensate to them only by a ploddingly conservative system that is unwilling to fulfill the duty of educating the public. You have somehow reversed this in your head, and the kindest interpretation is that you're incredibly unfamiliar with the matters, social groups, and positions involved. I will say that it was a mistake to end my post the way that I did. It was a parallelism which never indicated its parallel. The hypothetical student's discomfort at the Little Black Sambo passage was intended as the final moment in which Winston Smith is writing "2 + 2 = " with his finger in the dust, a last spark of light leaving his eye as he recalls saying that freedom is the ability to say that 2 + 2 = 4. In this case the reader is expected to understand that Winston will be unable to reach a conclusion to the question he has himself drawn, that the reason the answer will be "no do not censor the racist book" will not be because critical thinking was employed and instead is because anti-censorship is a safe party-supplied default answer, and the question involved in both F451 and ST of how opposed social responsibility and individual responsibility can be are unlikely to be asked again. Because I find the knee jerk safe statements of anti censorship principles in conservative discourse to be a thought terminating cliche.