Burning Books

fantome profane said:

Let me ask a hypothetical question.

Do you see a difference between someone choosing not to sell a particular book in their bookstore, and someone going to every other bookstore and ripping the book off the shelves and burning it?

Click to expand...

Well, it depends. In your scenario, are they buying the books legally, or are they stealing them? There's nothing illegal about buying books and then burning them, as long as the books are your own property.

In the OP, there's no indication that the Georgia students stole the books, is there?

Stevicus said:

Well, it depends. In your scenario, are they buying the books legally, or are they stealing them? There's nothing illegal about buying books and then burning them, as long as the books are your own property.

In the OP, there's no indication that the Georgia students stole the books, is there?

Click to expand...

That is a very good distinction. I guess the point is you can do what you want with your own property, whether the property in question is a book, or a bookstore.

If you own a bookstore you are under no obligation to sell every book in existence. You can choose not to sell a particular book, and you have no obligation to explain your reasons to anyone.

Back to the question you asked me, in case you forgot, YouTube is under no obligation to provide a platform to anyone. It is certainly not the digital version of book burning. It is the digital version of not selling a book.

fantome profane said:

That is a very good distinction. I guess the point is you can do what you want with your own property, whether the property in question is a book, or a bookstore.

If you own a bookstore you are under no obligation to sell every book in existence. You can choose not to sell a particular book, and you have no obligation to explain your reasons to anyone.

Back to the question you asked me, in case you forgot, YouTube is under no obligation to provide a platform to anyone. It is certainly not the digital version of book burning. It is the digital version of not selling a book.

Click to expand...

Well, if we're reducing everything down to bare bones legal obligations, then those students in GA have no legal obligations to refrain from burning books they don't like - as long as they legally purchased them.

Stevicus said:

Well, if we're reducing everything down to bare bones legal obligations, then those students in GA have no legal obligations to refrain from burning books they don't like - as long as they legally purchased them.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, no question about that. As long as they are also obeying fire safety codes and all that.

I don’t like the symbolism behind book burning. I think it is horrible. But not illegal.

fantome profane said:

Back to the question you asked me, in case you forgot, YouTube is under no obligation to provide a platform to anyone. It is certainly not the digital version of book burning. It is the digital version of not selling a book.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is an accurate analogy.

Social media/internet sites are highly concentrated, and there is often not a direct replacement.

It's more like if there were only 2 or 3 printing presses in the country and these decided what to print based on political ideology., Being denied access to one of these (and potentially the others) would be highly disadvantageous. People can say 'well the presses are private businesses, and you can still speak and handwrite your ideas' but you would be at a remarkable disadvantage and would give great power to the press owners that they could use to disproportionately influence society.

Put it this way, how much more concerned would you be if your political opponents had executive control over youtube, Facebook, Twitter media sites, paypal and methods of pay/monitisation compared to them owning a chain of bookstores?

Augustus said:

I'm not sure that is an accurate analogy.

Social media/internet sites are highly concentrated, and there is often not a direct replacement.

It's more like if there were only 2 or 3 printing presses in the country and these decided what to print based on political ideology., Being denied access to one of these (and potentially the others) would be highly disadvantageous. People can say 'well the presses are private businesses, and you can still speak and handwrite your ideas' but you would be at a remarkable disadvantage and would give great power to the press owners that they could use to disproportionately influence society.

Put it this way, how much more concerned would you be if your political opponents had executive control over youtube, Facebook, Twitter media sites, paypal and methods of pay/monitisation compared to them owning a chain of bookstores?

Click to expand...

Let’s talk about what ethical responsibilities people who control these platforms have.

Yes, they do have an ethical duty to allow a diversity of opinions.

But they also have an ethical duty to not allow people to use their platforms to promote violence, hate, or to spread disinformation.


And I object to your analogy of there being only “2 or 3 printing presses”. This is not reality. The conservative movement certainly has the resources and access to create their own platforms. Look at “conservapedia” for example. If they are not satisfied with the how these platforms are run, they have the ability to create their own.

sealchan said:

Yeah there are plenty of white people who cannot reasonably claim to be privileged.

Click to expand...

But "white privilege" refers specifically to the privileges conferred by simply BEING white (i.e: being statistically less likely be to be harassed, being more likely to occupy positions of power, being less likely to be targeted by police. etc). It doesn't mean that no white people are disadvantaged when compared to others (even generally less advantaged groups). It simply means that there are specific benefits and privileges conferred by being white.

sealchan said:

It may be time for race identity politics to fan out into class identity and address race in more focused sectors like law enforcement where it is more obvious.

Click to expand...

But surely you understand that race has a significant influence on factors like class and law enforcement. To ignore the racial element of class and social disparity is misguided, in my opinion. If you wish to truly examine and mitigate the cause of these kinds of social problems, you must also be open to acknowledging and examining the racial components of them.

sealchan said:

We need to become more sophisticated in our psychological self-awareness if we want to continue to grow and thrive our diverse cultures together. Unfortunately, psychology is like new new religion or politics, a dirty word for a contentious topic.

Click to expand...

But surely part of that means acknowledging racial disparity, and the role this place in society, and finding the best ways to mitigate it.

Doesn't it?

Wandering Monk said:

So is it cultural appropriation of a white male embraces the philosophy of Martin Luther King?

Click to expand...

No. Political philosophy and ideology is not necessarily a cultural artifact.

fantome profane said:

Yes, they do have an ethical duty to allow a diversity of opinions.

But they also have an ethical duty to not allow people to use their platforms to promote violence, hate, or to spread disinformation.

Click to expand...

Do you trust self-interested billionaires to act in society's best interests or theirs?

(Assuming you are Democrat, if not replace names with something suitable)

How would you feel if Koch Industries/Saudi Arabia/Putin controlled Google, Twitter and Facebook and used this to delete the accounts, and entire posting histories of Democrat politicians and prominent influencers 6 months before the next election based on spurious reasoning?

Or revised algorithms to prioritise Republican content in Google searches, or abuse the "next up" on Youtube to show you right wing content every time you search for left wing?

Would you be fine with even subtle manipulations designed to have significant real-world effects? After all Dems could just start their own social networks if they don't like it.

Online control if far worse than burning books as destroying physical books is mostly symbolic, or at least only limited in effectiveness. Online controls can very effectively 'destroy' entire bodies of work to a large % of the population.

fantome profane said:

And I object to your analogy of there being only “2 or 3 printing presses”. This is not reality. The conservative movement certainly has the resources and access to create their own platforms. Look at “conservapedia” for example. If they are not satisfied with the how these platforms are run, they have the ability to create their own.

Click to expand...

Revolutionary technologies can only be compared to other revolutionary technologies.

"Well you can just start your own social network (and grow it up to 1 billion users)" is a terrible argument as it ignores the realities of the online ecosystem.

Social networks gain their value from the users and network that developed largely through being in the right place at the right time and other forms of historical accident.

Pretending you can just invent you own Facebook and it's remotely comparable is inane.

After the last election people were up in arms about trolls and Russian SM influence, why then is ownership of the networks themselves no big deal?

fantome profane said:

Absolutely, no question about that. As long as they are also obeying fire safety codes and all that.

I don’t like the symbolism behind book burning. I think it is horrible. But not illegal.

Click to expand...

No matter if the response is book-burning or digital banning, both would imply a fear of ideas and that the only way to deal with these ideas is by eliminating them in whatever way is possible. It's basically a way of saying "We are unable to challenge or debate these ideas in an intellectual realm, so therefore we will remove them."

It's not so much a question of whether they have the right to do it, nor is anyone saying that YouTube or Facebook have any obligations to provide a platform to anything they don't like.

But just like the book-burners, they're tacitly admitting that they're cowards and intellectually incapable of debating anything that's too much for them to handle. That's what we're dealing with here, and I agree that it is horrible. This is especially true since many people are lamenting just how polarized the country is at present. Consider the OP and what the Cuban-American author said in the article:

Capó Crucet described the interaction as hostile, surreal and strange. She says students began shouting back and forth, but she asked faculty to find the student who asked the initial question and other "similarly upset students" because "a compassionate and continuing conversation needed to occur."

Click to expand...

A "compassionate and continuing conversation" is not going to occur as long as there are active efforts to shut down, silence, and/or intimidate the opposition.

fantome profane said:

And I object to your analogy of there being only “2 or 3 printing presses”. This is not reality. The conservative movement certainly has the resources and access to create their own platforms. Look at “conservapedia” for example. If they are not satisfied with the how these platforms are run, they have the ability to create their own.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, that's exactly what a lot of people are doing and continue to do. This is why we have so many "echo chambers" that people often gravitate towards. That's what makes it all the more curious that the larger platforms would seek to ban various ideas, since they're not actually stopping them from being propagated. All they're really doing is reducing the likelihood of any real public challenges or any meaningful debate or discussion. People will remain in their echo chambers while the battle lines are being drawn.

SomeRandom said:

I’ll admit that I reacted quite harshly against Identity Politics in the past. But I think I didn’t really understand it’s nuance. Plus it was more American centric, so I didn’t quite understand the political agendas at play very well.
When people start questioning the institutions that are present in society, there will always be backlash. Even from former rebels. The anxiety and fear and even resentment that can crop up when told that you may be part of the problem, tends to put peoples backs against the wall. So they lash out. After some introspection, I have learned to “check my privilege.” Though in Australia I can’t say that I’ve run into that much identity politics in our culture or indeed academia. Not like America anyway. Not that we aren’t politically active about things, of course. (legend has it that the climate change protestors are still blocking bridges to this day.)

Click to expand...

Perhaps ironically those work in the academic discipline of sociology and who are trying to qualify and quantify how social systems might work to protect certain groups of individuals are "triggering" that very sense of entitlement.

This is the problem that comes up when dealing with the human psyche in the context of science. Individuals have non-scientific beliefs which will impact their ability to be rational about scientifically-framed evidence. Challenging someone at their implicit level of privilege can trigger someone into emotionality simply because it may deconstruct their sense of integrity on multiple levels. Sort of like a freshman college student who made it into their dream college but finds out midway through their sophomore year their parents cheated them into that school.

We must recognize that we all grow up into a set of shared assumptions that allow us to act more or less with a free conscience. We need to honor that even as we attempt to identify the ways in which people are being systemically disenfranchised. Not an easy task but a necessary one I think.

Augustus said:

Do you trust self-interested billionaires to act in society's best interests or theirs?

(Assuming you are Democrat, if not replace names with something suitable)

How would you feel if Koch Industries/Saudi Arabia/Putin controlled Google, Twitter and Facebook and used this to delete the accounts, and entire posting histories of Democrat politicians and prominent influencers 6 months before the next election based on spurious reasoning?

Or revised algorithms to prioritise Republican content in Google searches, or abuse the "next up" on Youtube to show you right wing content every time you search for left wing?

Would you be fine with even subtle manipulations designed to have significant real-world effects? After all Dems could just start their own social networks if they don't like it.

Online control if far worse than burning books as destroying physical books is mostly symbolic, or at least only limited in effectiveness. Online controls can very effectively 'destroy' entire bodies of work to a large % of the population.



Revolutionary technologies can only be compared to other revolutionary technologies.

"Well you can just start your own social network (and grow it up to 1 billion users)" is a terrible argument as it ignores the realities of the online ecosystem.

Social networks gain their value from the users and network that developed largely through being in the right place at the right time and other forms of historical accident.

Pretending you can just invent you own Facebook and it's remotely comparable is inane.

After the last election people were up in arms about trolls and Russian SM influence, why then is ownership of the networks themselves no big deal?

Click to expand...

This is a carefully reasoned response. Bias is an issue at many levels of our social systems. I suspect that a democratic ideal will always present us the challenge of looking to reduce bias within the historical development of our social systems.

ImmortalFlame said:

But "white privilege" refers specifically to the privileges conferred by simply BEING white (i.e: being statistically less likely be to be harassed, being more likely to occupy positions of power, being less likely to be targeted by police. etc). It doesn't mean that no white people are disadvantaged when compared to others (even generally less advantaged groups). It simply means that there are specific benefits and privileges conferred by being white.

Click to expand...

I see "white privilege" as more an observation of the results and consequences of centuries of racist policies which have existed in the US and other countries/colonies with a white population. Even if those policies have been officially removed on paper, and even if many whites today strongly denounce and dissociate themselves from those policies, there still seems to be an apparent "legacy" or holdover which is still observable in society.

The term "white privilege" itself may be a misnomer, which is the most likely reason why many people react against it. As a result, more people tend to argue over terminology and semantics rather than addressing the actual social issues in question.

But surely you understand that race has a significant influence on factors like class and law enforcement. To ignore the racial element of class and social disparity is misguided, in my opinion. If you wish to truly examine and mitigate the cause of these kinds of social problems, you must also be open to acknowledging and examining the racial components of them.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would deny the racial elements of class and social disparity, but the real issue is an intentional avoidance and refusal to address class issues as the most significant component.

This is especially true when one considers that institutionalized racism largely came about as a contrivance by the upper classes in order to keep poor whites pacified. By keeping the lower classes divided and against each other based on their own particular "identity," it keeps the upper classes on top. Nowadays, the same goal is achieved by feeding and maintaining identity politics - anything that might prevent bonding and unity among the lower classes.

But surely part of that means acknowledging racial disparity, and the role this place in society, and finding the best ways to mitigate it.

Doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, although it would also mean acknowledging the bigger picture and examining the reasons why and how that racial disparity came about in the first place - and why it was able to persist for as long as it did - even up to the present day. If we can't understand the cause of it, then we won't be able to reach any long-term solutions.

fantome profane said:

Absolutely, no question about that. As long as they are also obeying fire safety codes and all that.

I don’t like the symbolism behind book burning. I think it is horrible. But not illegal.

Click to expand...

For me book burning reflects a psychological dilemma...how does one respond individually to ideas in our society when those ideas threaten our sense of safety? For some that sense of safety might be seen as an unfair advantage. For others it is intimately tied into their sense of integrity.

For me the great problem of our modern scientific society is that we have reached a level of systemic objectivity that can undercut our individual sense of integrity so quickly that more and more each generation is having to rethink it's own attitudes more frequently than ever before. We may be, on an objective level, taxing our psyches so hard that we are causing many to challenge science and the free press on the whole...shooting the messenger so to speak.

It's as if liberal scientists are spreading ideas so rapidly and with such force that they are displacing older ideas like the US government protected the settlement of non-native peoples into native American lands. Is it possible that in our rush to provide freedom we are nearly destroying the lives of others? Should we feel free to justify our liberal, scientific views as a manifest destiny?

Stevicus said:

I see "white privilege" as more an observation of the results and consequences of centuries of racist policies which have existed in the US and other countries/colonies with a white population. Even if those policies have been officially removed on paper, and even if many whites today strongly denounce and dissociate themselves from those policies, there still seems to be an apparent "legacy" or holdover which is still observable in society.

The term "white privilege" itself may be a misnomer, which is the most likely reason why many people react against it. As a result, more people tend to argue over terminology and semantics rather than addressing the actual social issues in question.

Click to expand...

This is also part of the tapestry, yes. I still encounter the crushingly naive "racism is over because now everyone is legally equal" argument all of the time, and it makes me despair.

I'm not sure it's fair to blame the terminology of "white privilege", though. Ultimately, the only cure there need be for that is education or some mild research. But people seem keen to be reactionary rather than considerate these days, and subtlety and nuance are almost always abandoned in favour of bad faith interpretations of terms or semantics, because engaging with "what you feel like the term implies" is easier for a lot easier for many people than dealing with the actual issue the term is used to address. We see this a lot with "black lives matter" ("Why not *all* lives matter??"), "cultural appropriation" ("Is it appropriation if black people wear clothes designed by a white person??") and numerous other terms or phrases related to social justice.

It seems to me like there is a vested interest in avoiding and refusing to acknowledge these issues, and the first line of defense is always to attack, misconstrue or otherwise twist the terminology in some way to avoid engaging with the subject at hand. After-all, it's near impossible to admit that you or society may have some issues that need addressing if you aren't allowing people the language with which to talk about them. It's just another sleazy, psychological trick the insecure use to avoid examining problems they'd rather not believe exist.

Stevicus said:

I don't think anyone would deny the racial elements of class and social disparity, but the real issue is an intentional avoidance and refusal to address class issues as the most significant component.

This is especially true when one considers that institutionalized racism largely came about as a contrivance by the upper classes in order to keep poor whites pacified. By keeping the lower classes divided and against each other based on their own particularly "identity," it keeps the upper classes on top. Nowadays, the same goal is achieved by feeding and maintaining identity politics - anything that might prevent bonding and unity among the lower classes.

Click to expand...

For me, social justice is actually an attempt to overcome identity politics, rather than an engagement with it. From my experience, the use of social justice and its related subjects and terms is no to further separate people by identity, but to greater increase knowledge of the social and cultural differences between us in order to foster greater understanding. In my experience, groups who promote social justice tend to be extremely varied, and far more interested in reaching out rather than dividing. Part of the trap is in thinking that merely acknowledging the differences that exist somehow generates division, when I find the exact opposite is true.

Stevicus said:

Yes, although it would also mean acknowledging the bigger picture and examining the reasons why and how that racial disparity came about in the first place - and why it was able to persist for as long as it did - even up to the present day. If we can't understand the cause of it, then we won't be able to reach any long-term solutions.

Click to expand...

I would also agree with that. Ultimately, it is all a consequence of significant, long-reaching history that will take a lot of time to really get to grips with. The reasons for racism reach as far as remnants of colonialism and hierarchical class structure; systems designed to place a very specific sub-set of people on top and keep them on top at all costs.

ImmortalFlame said:

This is also part of the tapestry, yes. I still encounter the crushingly naive "racism is over because now everyone is legally equal" argument all of the time, and it makes me despair.

I'm not sure it's fair to blame the terminology of "white privilege", though. Ultimately, the only cure there need be for that is education or some mild research. But people seem keen to be reactionary rather than considerate these days, and subtlety and nuance are almost always abandoned in favour of bad faith interpretations of terms or semantics, because engaging with "what you feel like the term implies" is easier for a lot easier for many people than dealing with the actual issue the term is used to address. We see this a lot with "black lives matter" ("Why not *all* lives matter??"), "cultural appropriation" ("Is it appropriation if black people wear clothes designed by a white person??") and numerous other terms or phrases related to social justice.

Click to expand...

The terminology is important and should be carefully considered, since these are the words used to convey ideas. Anticipating the possible effect it might have on the audience is a proactive way of avoiding these kinds of pitfalls.

In American politics, people tend to use labels as bludgeons, and in doing so, we lose whatever subtleties and nuance which one might wish to convey. This is also a culture dominated by soundbites, memes, and dumbed-down, sanitized slogans which rarely mean what they actually say.

If the goal is truly about social justice, then the focus should be on the goal itself. Instead, people seem more fixated on the processes and symptoms of social injustice, without giving much of a clear understanding of causes and solutions.

I agree in part that the cure might involve education and mild research, but it's going to take a lot more than simply that. I don't think anyone believes that "racism is over," but there appears to be less of it now than there was during my grandparents' time. Institutionalized, official racism has been mostly outlawed. The old Separate But Equal doctrine was overturned, along with other practices being reversed or banned.

It seems to me like there is a vested interest in avoiding and refusing to acknowledge these issues, and the first line of defense is always to attack, misconstrue or otherwise twist the terminology in some way to avoid engaging with the subject at hand. After-all, it's near impossible to admit that you or society may have some issues that need addressing if you aren't allowing people the language with which to talk about them. It's just another sleazy, psychological trick the insecure use to avoid examining problems they'd rather not believe exist.

Click to expand...

Well, eventually, the subject at hand has to come out anyway, regardless of the terminology or the attempts to attack it. Some could just as easily make the argument that the terminology itself could also be an attempt to manipulate or use some kind of "psychological trick," which could explain why people react to it as they do. For similar reasons, people tend to bristle against a certain line of thinking which has often been referred to as "political correctness." They see it more as a disingenuous tactic and a way of smearing political opposition, than a good faith effort to achieve social justice.

For me, social justice is actually an attempt to overcome identity politics, rather than an engagement with it. From my experience, the use of social justice and its related subjects and terms is no to further separate people by identity, but to greater increase knowledge of the social and cultural differences between us in order to foster greater understanding. In my experience, groups who promote social justice tend to be extremely varied, and far more interested in reaching out rather than dividing. Part of the trap is in thinking that merely acknowledging the differences that exist somehow generates division, when I find the exact opposite is true.

Click to expand...

The only real concrete measures of social justice would be in the economic realm. Ultimately, that's what we're dealing with, no matter how you slice it. Anything beyond that is just what people feel, which can't really be legislated or controlled. Social justice can be best achieved through economic and political justice, and this would involve a redistribution of wealth and power in this country - which would require careful examination of the class hierarchy and how power is dispensed in this country.

I don't think it's a matter that "merely acknowledging the differences somehow generates division." I would suggest that more is required than "merely acknowledging." If anything, the "acknowledgement" is incomplete and insufficient, to the point of appearing one-sided and highly selective. It may not be intended that way, but it appears that people are perceiving it that way.

I would also agree with that. Ultimately, it is all a consequence of significant, long-reaching history that will take a lot of time to really get to grips with. The reasons for racism reach as far as remnants of colonialism and hierarchical class structure; systems designed to place a very specific sub-set of people on top and keep them on top at all costs.

Click to expand...

Some people look at US history and consider it to be "short," or not quite as long and steeped in tradition as the history of European nations. But US history is still somehow intertwined with that, and it also is rather complicated and oftentimes difficult to characterize in any meaningful way. There's a certain "mythos" about our history and our very national identity which is somewhat of a sacred cow and considered beyond reproach. There's a certain "psychological trick" involved in how we perceive our nation, our role in the world, and our general identity as "Americans," but it would take more time than I have right now to go into.

Stevicus said:

Another effective form of censorship was to simply prevent people from publishing or printing their works - or punishing them if they did. That's a quieter form of censorship which might actually be more effective.

In the Internet era, it's even easier to simply delete posts or accounts - or to ban people from the common platforms used to convey information. When Facebook or YouTube or some other platform decides to ban someone, are they doing the digital equivalent of "book burning"?

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of any acts of banning not based on generally acceptable rules of conduct.

ImmortalFlame said:

But "white privilege" refers specifically to the privileges conferred by simply BEING white (i.e: being statistically less likely be to be harassed, being more likely to occupy positions of power, being less likely to be targeted by police. etc). It doesn't mean that no white people are disadvantaged when compared to others (even generally less advantaged groups). It simply means that there are specific benefits and privileges conferred by being white.


But surely you understand that race has a significant influence on factors like class and law enforcement. To ignore the racial element of class and social disparity is misguided, in my opinion. If you wish to truly examine and mitigate the cause of these kinds of social problems, you must also be open to acknowledging and examining the racial components of them.


But surely part of that means acknowledging racial disparity, and the role this place in society, and finding the best ways to mitigate it.

Doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Certainly...I'm wanting to acknowledge, however, that the critique can easily play deeply into a persons sense of integrity and raise their emotionality. Those who raise the topic should then be prepared to address it.

Giving time to those who feel threatened, hearing out their perspective, acknowledging their feelings, validating their perspective...then you can maybe lay the foundation for an incremental advancement into their own thinking of a deeper, more critical perspective of their position. It is a long slow process certainly and we cant afford to skip ahead to the outcomes when we have such a consciousness raised against the ideas.

sealchan said:

I haven't heard of any acts of banning not based on generally acceptable rules of conduct.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how one defines "generally acceptable rules of conduct." To me, if it doesn't break the "clear and present danger" rule, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

Stevicus said:

I guess it depends on how one defines "generally acceptable rules of conduct." To me, if it doesn't break the "clear and present danger" rule, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

Click to expand...

I suspect that "clear and present danger" might be a loophole for systematic hate or violence obfuscated by a systematic avoidance of direct threats. I would accept the banning of individual sources clearly linked to hate and violence groups that did not denounce such groups directly over a extended period of time.