4 ms·

Unless it's censorship [1] they don't like, in which case they call it book-burning. And we all know who burned books, don't we? [1] The bar to be called that

Unless it's censorship [1] they don't like, in which case they call it book-burning. And we all know who burned books, don't we? [1] The bar to be called that can be as low or high as needed. Book publishers, online stores, credit cards, and social media platforms banning a person can be just "freedom of association", but not giving government support to a work by placing it in school libraries is censorship. You can take a guess at how many books that Amazon won't sell are on school library shelves. Yet that's not censorship.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> we all know who burned books, don't we? Everybody. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents#Cold_War_era_and_1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents... There are instances of books being burned for pragmatic, non-ideological reasons. But generally, reactionary ideology seems to top the charts.
- a1369209993 3y ago
  > And it's not always a reactionary act. It's sometimes for pragmatic reasons - to prevent or curtail a non-ideological issue. Literally all of the examples in #Cold_War_era_and_1990s either were explicitly ideological, or seem plausibly likely to have been ideological, and the latter are all along the lines of "Well, they might have had a personal grudge against the author." or "We don't have any idea why they commited arson against a library.". Do you have any specific examples of attempted curtailment of a non-ideological issue? (No, "but our ideology is RIGHT!" doesn't count; denying people that shortcut is more or less the point of free speech.)