Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

blogs.seattleweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 162 posts

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#131

Post by knieveltech »

rbanffy wrote: post #90
ascuttlefish wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've nailed it. Bill Maher asked the media '[C]ould you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate."' Acknowledging ignorant views and handling those who hold them with kids gloves is just another of many possible paths to Idiocracy.

Careful. One of the cornerstones of democracy is that the ignorant will chose who also governs the educated if they are numerous enough.

s/cornerstones of/major bugs in/ There. Fixed that for you.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#133

Post by roel_v »

jbooth wrote: post #129
roel_v wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I agree partly with the last part, but then what others are? Does being unhappy make one be alive? Does being discontent? Or is there moral virtue in the 'natural' state of things, not being changed by human intervention; is it the fact the happiness is made in the book, not by the happy person him or herself, but by 'the machine', the society? If so, shouldn't we stop all state intervention that tries to imp…

Yeah, discontent definitely means being alive. If you're fat, dumb and happy to the extreme degree portrayed in the book, then you're going to live a worthless life from the perspective of any individual creativity or accomplishment.

I'm not sure what your intention is - are you arguing that discontent does mean being alive, and that creativity or accomplishment can only come from discontent, or are you being sarcastic?

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#134

Post by absconditus »

Anechoic wrote: post #123
NathanKP wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that in case such as this the ones who ban the book haven't really read it. Anyone who reads "Brave New World" and actually thinks about it will see its true message, and anyone who reads "Huck Finn" and actually thinks about it won't find its use of the word "nigger" objectionable. The problem is that it is easier to jump to a conclusion than it is to stop and think.

> anyone who reads "Huck Finn" and actually thinks about it won't find its use of the word "nigger" objectionable. I've read Huck Finn (and Tom Sawyer) as required in high school. I am also black. As a product of it's day, I understand the context in which the language is being used but that didn't make it any less demeaning and frankly the only effect it had on me was to make me not want to read any more Mark Twain…

I find your comment as baffling as the article under discussion and for much the same reason.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#135

Post by roel_v »

Goronmon wrote: post #128
roel_v wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book also explicitly describes that these castes are perfectly happy being who they are. They are happy and proud to be in their caste and have no desires to be in another caste. All inhabitants are happy and feel at place in life. So now where's the problem? Is there an inherent moral evil in social strata, when those people have no desire for class mobility ? I mean I'm all in favor of letting and encouraging p…

Everyone is happy and proud to be in their caste because their brains have been programmed to be happy and proud about their status in life. Does slavery become alright as long as you brainwash slaves into thinking they are content?

"Does slavery become alright as long as you brainwash slaves into thinking they are content?"

Well that's my question. It stops being "slavery" at the point that the "slave" doesn't feel like a slave anymore and is happy about their situation, doesn't it? I see on television (yeah, I know...) people in SM lifestyles who go out on the internet to find somebody who they can give complete control over their lives, much like a slave I guess. Is that OK? I see no problem with it.

I know you say 'thinking they are content', which is different from what the book says (and I'm assuming the SM slave is also truly content, and not made believe to be so, or psychologically damaged to the point they can't recognize content). The book says that they were actually content, I'm reasoning from that assumption. I guess one could say 'it's impossible to make people truly content through these means"; fine, that's a valid position, and I agree. I'm just going from abstract assumptions as they were framed in the book.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#136

Post by jbooth »

roel_v wrote: post #133
jbooth wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, discontent definitely means being alive. If you're fat, dumb and happy to the extreme degree portrayed in the book, then you're going to live a worthless life from the perspective of any individual creativity or accomplishment.

I'm not sure what your intention is - are you arguing that discontent does mean being alive, and that creativity or accomplishment can only come from discontent, or are you being sarcastic?

1) and 2) -- it's hard to really feel alive if you live your life in a mundane, average state of happy-enough, and you're certainly not going to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#137

Post by rglullis »

knieveltech wrote: post #131
rbanffy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Careful. One of the cornerstones of democracy is that the ignorant will chose who also governs the educated if they are numerous enough.

s/cornerstones of/major bugs in/ There. Fixed that for you.

No. It is one of the cornerstones. Democracy is about being treated as equal according to the law . Anyone who thought that was a bug and tried to "fix it" ended up bringing authoritarianism, slavery and less liberty.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#138

Post by jrockway »

pmr_ wrote: post #107
jrockway wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really "crazy people getting their way" when the crazy person complains, the school says, "oh yeah, it's banned, uh huh", and then everyone reads it anyway? To me, that sounds more like getting the crazy person to STFU as quickly as possible. Sometimes you have to pretend to throw your principles away until the next shiny object comes along.

Yeah, and the next shiny thing that comes along is personal freedom, free speech and some "crazy person" complains and you just "pretend" to throw away your principles to make them shut up. 'and then everyone reads it anyway' And when the time comes some simpleton that just takes orders and follows the law to the letter will come and throw you into prison for reading it. Are you serious?

What I'm saying is this:

Person A: "I hate foo."

Person B: "Oh, yeah, me too, it's banned."

Person A: "Great!"

Person B: "NOT!"

but person A is already bored with the issue, so everyone is happy.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#139

Post by rglullis »

Alex3917 wrote: post #21
alanh wrote: post #8

> What Sense-Wilson and her daughter seem to be having trouble grasping is that the "savages" in the book are only called "savages" because the mainstream society which they aren't a part of is so perverted. In reality, Huxley's savages are indeed the heroes… Indeed. The “savage” reads Shakespeare, which no one else in the book does anymore, for example. It’s just like people wanting to ban Huck Finn because it uses…

"In reality, Huxley's savages are indeed the heroes…" The savages aren't the heroes, but rather are there to show the lack of realistic options. Huxley himself favored a psychedelic society, which he wrote about in Island.

Did he actually "favoured" the society in Island? I know that he personally experimenting with drugs during the time he wrote it, but when I read the book I saw it as "Brave New World, governed by a leftist-idealist".

The same principles to manipulate the society on Brave New World are applied on the people of the Island.

You still see people being conditioned to obedience/compliance ("Pavlov used for the good, for love"), you still see use of drugs as a way to escape reality, etc...

Not to mention that is pretty clear that the society is not sustainable. A society that is not able to defend itself from the first menace is like a living organism without an immune system: it either lives in a bubble, or it is not viable.

Re: Brave New World banned from High School curriculum

#140

Post by anamax »

sukuriant wrote: post #110
anamax wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that "banned" requires some attempt to interfere with access. Taking something off a reading list isn't interfering with access. ("They won't read it if it isn't on the list" doesn't change things as it applies to everything that's not on the list and you're arguing that the reason matters.) There's nothing wrong with objecting to how a reading list is selected, but no matter what the reason, that process…

You're right, it isn't banning. How would you describe it? If we are to raise a banner against this person's effect on their area, we need to have a precise word that not only describes what's going on, but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance.

> but also reflects to the reader the strength of the defender's stance.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Is it equivalent to "the person making the decision is a bad person and the person objecting is a good person"?

If you're claiming that the reason for the decision is bad, shouldn't you argue that point with some specificity? (There are lots of reasons why a decision might be bad - surely you should mention which ones apply.)

Post reply on HN