You're viewing a single thread.
Before anyone complains: Book Burnings aren’t inherently evil. It’s like a tool, it can be used for a righteous or a nefarious cause.
Please list and cite for the class, any times in human history, where book burning is seen as warranted/acceptable.
Today.
Boooo!
Hurrah!
Bullshit. Even booked full of disgusting hate speech have their purpose as they let us know exactly what those kind of pieces of shit think and say.
But at the same time the value of preserving historical propaganda is different from destroying some of current bigoted propaganda as it’s being put out for mass dissemination. There’s a difference between an academic in the 90s studying der sturmer and an average German getting their hands on the same text in the 30s.
I don’t think Harry Potter counts for that, but Irreversible Damage sure does. If you start going into the library of congress and trying to destroy their copy I’ll have a problem, but attacking the copies at a target is fair game.
I think that would be more defined as a protest. Book burnings tend to imply that all media about a subject is being destroyed. It's a case of semantics, I guess.
Then place it in a museum and burn the ones at Barns and Noble.
That's the argument for statues not books. Why in the ever living fuck would you put a copy of some racist book in a museum?
For people to see the sins of our past. I guarantee you that there’s a Mien Kampf in a WW2 museum somewhere.
That's a little different because that's a book that Hitler wrote so it has huge historical context. I'm saying we shouldn't burn all offensive books. You're saying all the offensive books should go in a museum.
Everyone who burns a book thinks their cause is righteous. Those who fear words are cowards.