03 Mar 2021, 5:00 pm
03 Mar 2021, 5:02 pm
Should books with outdated views be re-written ?
No.
I don't support "The Ministry of Truth". 
Quote:
What does the Ministry of Truth do?
Role in information. The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.
Role in information. The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.
03 Mar 2021, 5:03 pm
03 Mar 2021, 5:05 pm
03 Mar 2021, 5:05 pm
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation...We have already gone past the "Archival Copyright" post -- it is no longer on the table!
Try to keep up!
03 Mar 2021, 5:06 pm
03 Mar 2021, 5:07 pm
03 Mar 2021, 5:10 pm
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation...We have already gone past the "Archival Copyright" post -- it is no longer on the table!
Try to keep up!I'm not sure I follow.
In the spirit of discussion I was attempting to understand the purpose and mechanism of your suggestion of an additional 70 year copyright period, which given the mention of parents no longer being able to "guilt trip kids", I took to mean the books would cease to be available to the general public.
If I've incorrectly interpreted your idea, please do feel free to correct me.
Edit: Apologies, I may have misinterpreted the message that came from. You mean that in teaching critical thinking, kids would no longer be manipulated as a result of their ability to reason away spurious points from their parents? I think several points got mixed up.
Last edited by bottleblank on 03 Mar 2021, 5:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
03 Mar 2021, 5:14 pm
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation... Try to keep up!Continuing to discuss "Archival Copyrights" at this point would be like reopening negotiations with the Japanese to end World War Two.
03 Mar 2021, 5:16 pm
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation... Try to keep up!Continuing to discuss "Archival Copyrights" at this point would be like reopening negotiations with the Japanese to end World War Two.
I see. Then I find it strange that you seemed to be arguing in its favour, but perhaps you were being sarcastic, I couldn't tell.
But if you don't believe it to be viable then I think we probably agree on that point.
Books for all, no backsies!
03 Mar 2021, 5:16 pm
03 Mar 2021, 5:22 pm
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation...We have already gone past the "Archival Copyright" post -- it is no longer on the table!
Try to keep up!Whoa, dude.
He is a newbie.
Give him some slack.
Can I have Teams inste-
...oh, right. Thanks for that, Pepe.
But seriously, I may have been genuinely misunderstanding something, as is my wont, though I'm happy to be corrected and I apologise if I did cause some confusion by my own.
I don't mind holding my own in online discussions where warranted, but perhaps that was a little heavy-handed, some newbies won't be quite so practiced...
03 Mar 2021, 5:28 pm
Jakki wrote:
Agrees with Isabellas , thoughts , but find myself in a position to remind people , of the history of what the
National Socialist party did in the middle to late 1930s , Hitler s. Brown shirts , organized a huge book burnings , for books whose ideas that were not in falling in line with his Parties ideals . And the USA has its very own list of banned books already in existence .
National Socialist party did in the middle to late 1930s , Hitler s. Brown shirts , organized a huge book burnings , for books whose ideas that were not in falling in line with his Parties ideals . And the USA has its very own list of banned books already in existence .
Agreed.
The irony of the progressive side of politics, falling in line with Nazi book-burning, is exquisite.
Jakki wrote:
I had learned of these in grade school , but where not given lists of the books , as they were banned . And sure Russia probably has its own list .
I have heard it said, many times, that the young people of today, arguing for socialism/communism, have not explored the atrocities of communism in the past.
Jakki wrote:
In the early days of the internet , you could access others countries search engines , which you could look up these sort of things . It is my belief now that accessing other countries search engines are probably abrogated by the powers that be . Chinas society is heavily regulated
In this matter I believe .
In this matter I believe .
If you go to a totalitarian government in search of the Truth, I don't fancy your chances.
03 Mar 2021, 5:37 pm
Pepe wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation...We have already gone past the "Archival Copyright" post -- it is no longer on the table!
Try to keep up!Whoa, dude.
He is a newbie.
Give him some slack.
Can I have Teams inste-
...oh, right. Thanks for that, Pepe.
But seriously, I may have been genuinely misunderstanding something, as is my wont, though I'm happy to be corrected and I apologise if I did cause some confusion by my own.
I don't mind holding my own in online discussions where warranted, but perhaps that was a little heavy-handed, some newbies won't be quite so practiced...
{redacted}
...but sin is so fun!
Not to get too far off-topic, I agree with the general points made about it being counterproductive for those wishing for progress to want to erase past (or present) beliefs which they do not agree with. Without acknowledgement of the past, it would be easy for those who could not have heard about it as a result of it being erased to then accidentally attempt to investigate it as a new way to live.
If all history of racism is erased, what is there to instruct a future mind that we have tried deeply racist philosophies before and we have found them to have negative side-effects? It may seem obvious to some, currently, that racism is bad and should not be acted upon, but in 100+ years from now, who knows? Somebody thought they had good reasons for it when it happened historically, but we have historical records which prove that it's not good. What if those records are gone? The next person might blindly stumble on the concept that segregation might be worth a try, if only to solve what they believe a legitimate problem needing to be solved...
03 Mar 2021, 7:05 pm
bottleblank wrote:
Pepe wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation...We have already gone past the "Archival Copyright" post -- it is no longer on the table!
Try to keep up!Whoa, dude.
He is a newbie.
Give him some slack.
Can I have Teams inste-
...oh, right. Thanks for that, Pepe.
But seriously, I may have been genuinely misunderstanding something, as is my wont, though I'm happy to be corrected and I apologise if I did cause some confusion by my own.
I don't mind holding my own in online discussions where warranted, but perhaps that was a little heavy-handed, some newbies won't be quite so practiced...
{redacted}
...but sin is so fun!
Not to get too far off-topic, I agree with the general points made about it being counterproductive for those wishing for progress to want to erase past (or present) beliefs which they do not agree with. Without acknowledgement of the past, it would be easy for those who could not have heard about it as a result of it being erased to then accidentally attempt to investigate it as a new way to live.
If all history of racism is erased, what is there to instruct a future mind that we have tried deeply racist philosophies before and we have found them to have negative side-effects? It may seem obvious to some, currently, that racism is bad and should not be acted upon, but in 100+ years from now, who knows? Somebody thought they had good reasons for it when it happened historically, but we have historical records which prove that it's not good. What if those records are gone? The next person might blindly stumble on the concept that segregation might be worth a try, if only to solve what they believe a legitimate problem needing to be solved...
Even some history that has not been erased is simply ignored.
03 Mar 2021, 7:18 pm
bottleblank wrote:
Pepe wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Fnord wrote:
bottleblank wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Looks like I will have to say this again, so nobody else argues needlessly against my "Archival Copyright" idea. Whoever said this first said it best: Teach children critical-thinking skills and how to find out the truth for themselves. The only drawback would be parents could no longer use religious "guilt trips" to keep their kids in line.
If your purpose is to restrict availability of books in order to prevent outdated misinformation...We have already gone past the "Archival Copyright" post -- it is no longer on the table!
Try to keep up!Whoa, dude.
He is a newbie.
Give him some slack.
Can I have Teams inste-
...oh, right. Thanks for that, Pepe.
But seriously, I may have been genuinely misunderstanding something, as is my wont, though I'm happy to be corrected and I apologise if I did cause some confusion by my own.
I don't mind holding my own in online discussions where warranted, but perhaps that was a little heavy-handed, some newbies won't be quite so practiced...
{redacted}
...but sin is so fun!
Not to get too far off-topic, I agree with the general points made about it being counterproductive for those wishing for progress to want to erase past (or present) beliefs which they do not agree with. Without acknowledgement of the past, it would be easy for those who could not have heard about it as a result of it being erased to then accidentally attempt to investigate it as a new way to live.
If all history of racism is erased, what is there to instruct a future mind that we have tried deeply racist philosophies before and we have found them to have negative side-effects? It may seem obvious to some, currently, that racism is bad and should not be acted upon, but in 100+ years from now, who knows? Somebody thought they had good reasons for it when it happened historically, but we have historical records which prove that it's not good. What if those records are gone? The next person might blindly stumble on the concept that segregation might be worth a try, if only to solve what they believe a legitimate problem needing to be solved...
Censorship and revision would also silence the voices of millions of victims and heroes, who deserve to have their stories known. I'm thinking of the BLM movement. What would compel people to fight for social change, if they didn't know the history of atrocities which had occurred due to xenophobia? What if the books, documents, and first-hand accounts were erased or altered? Dismissing those voices, and those narratives, would in effect "cancel" the people most greatly affected and deserving of recognition. Likewise the legacy of heroes like Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, or Ruby Bridges would be inconsequential without the context with which we view their bravery. There are two sides to every story. We can't make informed decisions as a global society without having access to the facts.
