[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 373 KB, 1507x1200, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862373 No.14862373 [Reply] [Original]

What is morally despicable about book burnings? If a book is subversive or degenerate, then why shouldn't the State prevent it from falling into the hands of impressionable people, ie the masses?

>> No.14862393

>>14862373
If your population is weak enough to even be subverted anon....

>> No.14862400
File: 41 KB, 500x500, ssoprd6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862400

Book burnings are justifiable and often desirable. The body of literature is like any other body, it there is a cancer you must cut it out.

>> No.14862412

Weak bait

>> No.14862416

Those who suppress knowledge want the world to live in a constant state of fantasy. Eventually it's futile and only slows down the eschaton marginally. Fascists are scared of movement, they idealize what they consider good and are in denial about death

>> No.14862434

>>14862373
Just look at the historical actors who burn books Christians, Muslims, and Nazis. That's all you need to know for it to be despicable

>> No.14862457

>>14862373
Its perfectly acceptable. The books the nazi burned were subversive pedo "psychology" books and communist books. Burning them was a moral obligation

>> No.14862474

>>14862457
this
Weimar Germany was full of filth that needed to be cleansed

>> No.14862479

>>14862457
>>14862474
And yet >>14862393

>> No.14862483

>>14862457
>>14862474
So we're against free speech then? How are those hate speech laws treating you

>> No.14862490

Because you bet on people's stupidity, you count on it and enhance it. One should not be afraid of contraditory or even fake books, it's fairly simple to argue against them without having to censor them. If you burn them, people will never know and you'll always be in the wrong.

>subversive or degenerate
Jesus christ, humanity has gone downhill, I bet you are 15 but you talk as if you were a 70 year old in diapers.

>> No.14862514

>>14862373
nice thread, bootlicker. imagine if current govt was the one deciding which books are alllowed.
in modern days though book burnings would be solely performative, demonstrative. everything is already on the net.

>> No.14862516

>>14862490
People are stupid and will believe stupid ideas even if they are debunked. Censorship is the only way to eradicate them.

>> No.14862529
File: 42 KB, 720x720, 1553857036338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862529

>>14862516
what's your opinion on current trends of censoring right-wing opinions and even plain crime stats?

>> No.14862534

>>14862373
Because book burnings are often accompanied by other acts of persecution and are a sign of a harsh, autocratic government.

>> No.14862540

>>14862529
Why are you being smug about this? Obviously, I want to censor progressive ideas and I want the state to prop up conservative values. I never claimed to be non-partisan.

>> No.14862546

Burning books today, when books are generally irrelevant in public discourse, is nothing but a fantasy and simulation.

>> No.14862552

>>14862540
If you ask what is "morally despicable" about it, you're pretending to be non-partisan because morality, unless you're a delusional Machiavellian wannabe, is non-partisan.

>> No.14862554

>>14862540
You get to be smug when you point out the hypocrisy of someones position

>> No.14862568

>>14862552
I'm not OP. Might is right.

>>14862554
>hypocrisy is bad

Cope. It's literally okay when we do it, but not when you do it.

>> No.14862573

>>14862516
Several problems.

>It does not eradicate them.
People will believe stupid shit anyway and censoring material makes it seem much more valuable, you actually advertise it.
>You won't be the one choosing what to censor
It will be someone in power, not a basement dweller shitposter
>Even if that was you, you wouldn't know what to censor
You don't know what's good or not. No one knows like that, it's just guess work.
>Censors usually don't even know what they are doing
They judge it by the cover and by people's reactions, they are dumb, usually don't read at all, not even from their own side.
>You validate the censors on the other side
If you allow this practice, the leftists burn right wing books, the right burns leftist books, religious people from this or that religion may destroy books from other religions, etc.
>You make people even dumber
If they don't read the other side, the arguments get more and more stupid and without connection to reality. When that ideology begins to come up again, the citizens will be unarmed to this debate. If you want to debunk communism or something like that, you read Marx and take it seriously, find its weak points and debate. If you just don't read, you are doomed to attack strawmen.

>> No.14862580

>>14862568
> It's literally okay when we do it, but not when you do it
Yeah that is the definition of hypocrisy

>> No.14862582
File: 101 KB, 785x731, Y8V7zJBJ-GE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862582

>>14862540
> book burnings are good if they're executed by a dictator i like!
> NOOOOOO NOT MY MEINKAMFERINO!! NO STOP BANNING BASADO BOOKOS WRITTEN BY REDPILLED FASHIS NOO NOT THE INCELUS MANIFESTINO FUCK YOU SJWS

>> No.14862584

>>14862568
>I'm not OP. Might is right.
Just try and do something about it then, LARPing faggot, while your poorly written screeds get taken off Amazon :)

>> No.14862585

>>14862580
Again,
>hypocrisy is bad

It's not. COPE.

>> No.14862591

>>14862568
>Might is right.
then current lefty govt must be stronger than fash larpers, as they're the ones getting prosecuted over opinions. nothing personal, goy.

>> No.14862595

>>14862585
>Why are you being smug about this?
U mad

>> No.14862599
File: 422 KB, 1195x1600, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862599

>>14862582
>you're literally Hitler! fucking Nazi!

Try again.

>> No.14862601
File: 33 KB, 445x563, OX4Mm4v-YGY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862601

>>14862585
hypocrisy is great, that's why nationalism is vital for us but prohibited for whitey.

>> No.14862607

>>14862582
Politics are like sports. You like it when your team wins and you dislike it when your team loses. You're not pointing out anything new. People who pretend they're non-biased are the real retards avoiding reality.

>> No.14862608

>>14862585
Reading this I feel like it would be strong cosmic justice if you were locked into an eternal anal rape machine with your only conversation partner being your torturer and everytime you'd ask him why he would just answer 'because you don't deserve it'

>> No.14862619

>>14862608
>lefties can only think about sex and degeneracy
Typical.

>> No.14862642

>>14862619
Hahaha. Am not exactly lefty, more anarchist really. I just felt like 'because fuck you' is the only underlying argument of hypocrisy. Golden rule n shit

I should also point out that noone has refuted my claim that a population that can be subverted is a population that DESERVES subversion.

>> No.14862646

>>14862642
Every population can be subverted

>> No.14862656

>>14862646
Every population deserves subversion because adversity is what makes or breaks a person and a people.

>> No.14862664
File: 183 KB, 771x804, aaf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862664

>>14862642
>because fuck you

>> No.14862672
File: 102 KB, 494x685, 1429248277__82369860_82369859.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862672

>>14862664

>> No.14862682

>>14862664
Precisely my point. So why aren't you moralfags accelerationists?

>> No.14862683

First they burn books, then they burn people.

>> No.14862696

>>14862412
>Oy vey!

>> No.14862703

>>14862552
>>14862529
>>14862554
>>14862582
I dont see whats so bad about it. You critique someone for not sticking to their paradigm. If a fundement of a society is freedom than the proponents of it should stick to it. If a fundement is to promote specific ideas and repress others, thats what they should do. It matters what the superlative virtue that is paramount in an ideology. If freedom is one than there you go. If simply following majority authority then there you go. If following a specific authority, there you go.

Its not hypocritical because it assumes a shared value in liberty.

>> No.14862705

>>14862400
kek

>> No.14862721

>>14862703
If you're for book burnings and then turn around and complain about people being banned on twitter for being nazis you're a hypocrite

>> No.14862722

>>14862400

Or the cancer metastasizes through this process and the body dies

>> No.14862725

>>14862483
Yes.

>> No.14862772

>>14862721
If you're in favor of burning what you perceive to be "subversive" or "degenerate" literature, then it is not hypocritical to claim censorship of books or people whom you do not deem "subversive" or "degenerate."

I'm not in favour of it, but you people can't argue for shit.

>> No.14862791

>>14862772
If you believe you're justified in censoring something you consider "subversive" it's hypocritical to say that other people aren't justified censoring stuff they consider "subversive". That is not a hard thing to understand just confirms that alt-right jackasses are retarded

>> No.14862795

>>14862546
what are you gonna do, burn printed out tweets?

>> No.14862803

>>14862795
Take down the net.

>> No.14862804

>>14862795
You can ban people from twitter which is a common complaint from the same type of nazi supporting book burnings here

>> No.14862806

>>14862703
If OP asked whether it was consistent with his own ideological values to burn books, then there is no point to the question. If OP asked whether it was consistent with others' ideological values to burn books, then there is no point to the question. If the question is whether it is morally correct, then you assume universally shared values, and all the rest is hypocrisy.

>> No.14862847

>>14862393
>weak enough to be subverted
are you retarded? I know no one on /lit/ reads but do you not even know what basic words mean?

>> No.14862852

>>14862483
Yes.

>> No.14862860

>>14862847
There's infection, and death through infection anon. That's the difference.

>> No.14862879

>>14862607
This

>> No.14862882

>>14862721

This is what I mean>>14862772. Im not pro book burning, but I dont think its hypocritical in and of itself. I think its important to get at the core of what we are discussing. Its hypocritical for WANTING the state to burn and censor books while personally BELIEVING freedom of expression to be a superlative value. It is not Hypocritical to WANT a states paradigm to shift to one thats superlative virtue is to promote a certain Narrative, while the states currant superlative virtue is Liberty and critiquing it for not holding up to that value.

>> No.14862904

>>14862806
>Its not hypocritical because it assumes a shared value in liberty.
Sorry ment to say
>Its ONLY hypocritical if it assumes a shared value in liberty.

But yah, agree

>> No.14862912

>>14862373
>subversive or degenerate
Subversive relative to what? Degenerate says who? It just means whatever those in power don't like.

>> No.14862916
File: 35 KB, 601x601, 1571359245583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14862916

>>14862852
>>14862725
fucking bootlickers

>> No.14862920

>>14862483
Mayhaps.

>> No.14862945

>>14862916
Cope, tranny

>> No.14862946

>>14862772
>>14862791
>>14862882
>muh principles
No. All trannies must hang.

>> No.14862962

You could say the same about guns, but since this is a literature board, take a look at the books banned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages the Nazis in Germany; The Church banned books with recipes of teas to cure diarrhea and unguents to treat mange, Nazis banned the books of Thomas Mann and Musil.