4 ms·
I'd argue that the Nazis are responsible for the loss of lives. Knifes can be murder weapons, we don't ban all knifes. The problem with banning problematic boo
by Chris2048 6y ago
I'd argue that the Nazis are responsible for the loss of lives. Knifes can be murder weapons, we don't ban all knifes.
The problem with banning problematic books, is you then establish problematic books can be banned. Once the precedent is established, it creates an additional attack vector on freedom of expression - any attempt at censorship will begin with an attempt at portraying something as problematic/harmful, and liberties will be taken with all variable definitions. Consider "hate speech" is one of few exceptions to the freedom of expression, so now people redefine all kinds of things they dislike as hateful for the purpose of social control.
- 29athrowaway 6y agoKnives have many uses. A better comparison would be a ballistic knife, which has a more specific purpose. A ballistic tactical knife is not for spreading butter on bread, it is for killing people. Eugenics is achieved by sterilization, euthanasia or murder. It always involves death in one way or another. If you write books promoting eugenics you are promoting the idea some people should die.
- Chris2048 6y agoI assume books about war are out too? as are the bible and koran. And where do you draw the line, just death? slavery? immorality ?
- 29athrowaway 6y agoThose books were written in a very different historic context. I have higher expectations for a 20th century scholar than people that lived 2000 to 1000 years ago.
- Chris2048 6y agoso context matter? So who judges the context? I'd point out there are plenty who'd kill in the name of someone who lived 100s of years ago - so what is you metric here: ban b/c of the consequences, or ban to punish the author?