Comments by "Ra Ra" (@RaRa-eu9mw) on "The books deemed too dangerous to read" video.

  1. But the former has taken more lives than the latter.
    3
  2. This is silly for a couple of reasons. Not all books are information, and are we really saying nuclear weapon instructions should be available to everyone?
    3
  3. When Joe says of Mein Kampf "it's not going to hurt you" what makes him so sure? Many neo-nazis today are inspired by the book. It kills every year.
    3
  4. This misses the point of the book - the "help" must come from those who know the person already.
    3
  5. How about if someone published a book full of slanderous claims about someone?
    3
  6. Oh dear
    3
  7. Legalise libel?
    2
  8.  @zweigackroyd7301  Many of us don't see that as the way forward. We need better societal support rather than increasing medicalisation. Thirteen Reasons Why emphasises the absence of this support. Including reference to professional services would be contrary to the thesis. Like arguing for veganism and putting the number of a local KFC on the back.
    1
  9.  @zweigackroyd7301  I think "help" is here being used euphemistically for medicalised interventions. Asher obviously cannot put the phone number of a close friend in the book, as he doesn't know who the readers' close friends are. Neither me nor Asher would see a price being paid here. We think a move towards societal support will save lives, not lose them.
    1
  10.  @zweigackroyd7301  The term "medicalised" here incorporates therapy, counselling etc. In the context of approaches to suicide "medicalisation" refers to any approach which pathologises, viewing the root problem with suicidality as internal to each suicidal person. I believe that only social connections and societal changes can fix the problem, yes, and someone without social connections in the current world is pretty well doomed. That's a big problem. With regards "causing suicides", any change or instability is going to do this. SSRIs famously increase suicide risk. I don't think this is a particularly strong argument against SSRIs, nor a particularly strong argument against improving society.
    1
  11. This is taking semantics to a needless and absurd level of contortions.
    1
  12.  @MarcusCactus  That's just not how the words are commonly used.
    1
  13. The US government stops people saying things too. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere.
    1
  14.  @Trav_Can  Ok? But in reality the two countries are pretty equivalent in terms of what we're allowed/not allowed to say.
    1
  15.  @Trav_Can  They cannot be gotten rid of, but they can be reinterpreted or straight up ignored. The US has very strict laws on libel (much stricter than the UK) and the first amendment hasn't stopped that. At the end of the day, every country's speech laws just reflect the mood of the time. The US isn't special in that regard.
    1
  16. 1984 is already there - it was banned in Russia and China.
    1
  17. The vast majority of people do not think critically. This idea is utopian naivety.
    1
  18. Should we do away with all laws? If they don't work?
    1
  19. It's a very severe racial slur.
    1