4 ms·

Hmm... Godwin's law much? My argument is that the symbolic rejection, not the practical destruction of books, was important. Also, I pointed out through a subt

Hmm... Godwin's law much? My argument is that the symbolic rejection, not the practical destruction of books, was important. Also, I pointed out through a subtle (too subtle for you so I'll spell it out: this is a wholly irrelevant argument - arguing that books don't deserve to be backed up has nothing to do with book burning) - so I played along - as I noted. Get it? The practical destruction of all books considered non-German, or Gandhi's destruction of all British fabrics - might have been a desire, but there's no need to publicly burn books to destroy them. They can be efficiently destroyed privately. The Nazi's could have destroyed all the books they liked in some private little place. Ergo, my argument stands! PUBLIC book burning is about PUBLIC rejection of something (non-German elements, or Foreign made goods, etc) and may in fact be less efficient than simply quietly and privately putting them in a landfill which no one will see. Get it? I'm not making stuff up about World War Two, I'm arguing about a ridiculous analogy to not backing up romance novels being akin to book burning. Apparently, not wanting to back up romance novels and cookbooks makes one a holocaust denier. Go Hacker News. Mr. Godwin? Are you around?

wizzwizz4 2y ago
The Nazis did destroy (or order destroyed) books quietly and privately, but large collections are easier to destroy in place. The more famous Nazi book burnings occurred prior to World War Two. When I said "that's Holocaust denial", I wasn't saying "you're a Nazi", but pointing out an accidental mistake. If I thought it were deliberate, I wouldn't have said anything. Your argument about the symbolic meaning of public book burnings is irrelevant (and I'm not sure why you brought it up), but there very much is a parallel between calling for the destruction-by-bitrot of books, and calling for the destruction-by-fire of books. (Again, I am not calling you a Nazi.)
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  Like I pointed out, the original reply linked my suggestion that 41% of books weren't worth backing up to "book burning". So, in the spirit of rebuttals to random non-sense, I pointed out that there was no link at all to my comment and book burnings, but... I repeat myself. Suggesting that backing up garbage books is not worthwhile, is apparently analogous to wanting all garbage you selectively oppose to be burned, in public. So, by extension, the Nazi's can be condemned for not only burning books, but refusing to make backup copies of them. I hope that clears this up.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

The Nazis did destroy (or order destroyed) books quietly and privately, but large collections are easier to destroy in place. The more famous Nazi book burnings occurred prior to World War Two. When I said "that's Holocaust denial", I wasn't saying "you're a Nazi", but pointing out an accidental mistake. If I thought it were deliberate, I wouldn't have said anything. Your argument about the symbolic meaning of public book burnings is irrelevant (and I'm not sure why you brought it up), but there very much is a parallel between calling for the destruction-by-bitrot of books, and calling for the destruction-by-fire of books. (Again, I am not calling you a Nazi.)

Over2Chars 2y ago
Like I pointed out, the original reply linked my suggestion that 41% of books weren't worth backing up to "book burning". So, in the spirit of rebuttals to random non-sense, I pointed out that there was no link at all to my comment and book burnings, but... I repeat myself. Suggesting that backing up garbage books is not worthwhile, is apparently analogous to wanting all garbage you selectively oppose to be burned, in public. So, by extension, the Nazi's can be condemned for not only burning books, but refusing to make backup copies of them. I hope that clears this up.