Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

College Students In Georgia Burn Latina Author's Book

Page 7 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 18  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

14 Oct 2019, 4:35 pm

"Wherever they burn books, in the end will also burn human beings." -- Heinrich Heine

Christian Johann Heinrich Heine is considered one of the most significant German romantic poets. However, in 1933, copies of Heine's books were among the many burned on Berlin's Opernplatz. To commemorate the event, one of the most famous lines from Heine's 1821 play Almansor is now engraved at the site: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too.").

In the play, this is a reference to the burning of the Quran during the Spanish Inquisition in an effort to eradicate the Moors from the Iberian Peninsula, which had been a major center of medieval Islamic culture.



mikeeesssan
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 14 Oct 2019
Posts: 4
Location: Columbus, OH

14 Oct 2019, 6:39 pm

Cyberdad regarding light-skinned Aborigine people did Australia have this thing of the one drop rule regarding Aborigine as was the case in America? with the one-drop rule for black blood and being officially defined thus In the past law in the States still custom.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Oct 2019, 4:58 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Back on topic while burning books in most cases is protected free speech there are legitimate reasons to fear it. It is an intimidating, chilling check on freedom of expression that is often an early step to a lot worse.

Historically it has been the right wing and religious fundamentalist tactic. In recent years it has been the similar ”cancel culture” wing of the left that has predominated. We can argue which has been worse but a situation where both sides are doing it, trying to one up each other is worst of all, the road to hell, an existential threat to free expression and thought and probably personal safety.


Yes the Nazi kiddies (or Nazis in training nappies) burning these books reminds me of the social media Nazis who burned their Nikes to protest Colin Kaerpernick.

Both groups nicely illustrated their white privilege by spending money on something and then burning it and then uploading the videos. I'm sure Hitler's brownshirts would have done the same to the bonfire of burning books if they had facebook



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 Oct 2019, 5:01 am

mikeeesssan wrote:
Cyberdad regarding light-skinned Aborigine people did Australia have this thing of the one drop rule regarding Aborigine as was the case in America? with the one-drop rule for black blood and being officially defined thus In the past law in the States still custom.


Yeah we had it too...across the colonies...one drop tainted the bloodline



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

15 Oct 2019, 5:39 am

cyberdad wrote:
Both groups nicely illustrated their white privilege by spending money on something and then burning it


I'm pretty sure all three or so videos of people burning this book were by students who attended the lecture, meaning that the book was required reading for them and they had no choice but to buy it.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

15 Oct 2019, 4:03 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Another hypocrisy, where’s the outrage when left burns books? Oh no it’s ok then. :roll:
Book burning is free select and righteous until non leftest do it then it’s horrible and evil.


Who ever said that? All books should be off limits for burning.

As should flags. But left burns both to silence from rest of the left.


Burning flags is a legitimate form of protest. I'd defend folks on the far-right if they've being condemned for it just as quickly as I'd defend folks I agree with. Unlike a book, a flag is merely a symbol that contains no knowledge, so the two aren't directly comparable.

So is burning books of those you don’t like. There’s not law against it there is one against burning the flag. I’ve thrown books away and burned a few. Unless your some super book nerd they just items to most people. It’s not like they burning ever last copy of her book.

Knowledge lol. Most books don’t contain knowledge


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,190
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Oct 2019, 4:29 pm

sly279 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Another hypocrisy, where’s the outrage when left burns books? Oh no it’s ok then. :roll:
Book burning is free select and righteous until non leftest do it then it’s horrible and evil.


Who ever said that? All books should be off limits for burning.

As should flags. But left burns both to silence from rest of the left.


Burning flags is a legitimate form of protest. I'd defend folks on the far-right if they've being condemned for it just as quickly as I'd defend folks I agree with. Unlike a book, a flag is merely a symbol that contains no knowledge, so the two aren't directly comparable.

So is burning books of those you don’t like. There’s not law against it there is one against burning the flag. I’ve thrown books away and burned a few. Unless your some super book nerd they just items to most people. It’s not like they burning ever last copy of her book.

Knowledge lol. Most books don’t contain knowledge


But they do contain something the author wanted to say.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,209
Location: Right over your left shoulder

15 Oct 2019, 8:06 pm

sly279 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Another hypocrisy, where’s the outrage when left burns books? Oh no it’s ok then. :roll:
Book burning is free select and righteous until non leftest do it then it’s horrible and evil.


Who ever said that? All books should be off limits for burning.

As should flags. But left burns both to silence from rest of the left.


Burning flags is a legitimate form of protest. I'd defend folks on the far-right if they've being condemned for it just as quickly as I'd defend folks I agree with. Unlike a book, a flag is merely a symbol that contains no knowledge, so the two aren't directly comparable.

So is burning books of those you don’t like. There’s not law against it there is one against burning the flag. I’ve thrown books away and burned a few. Unless your some super book nerd they just items to most people. It’s not like they burning ever last copy of her book.

Knowledge lol. Most books don’t contain knowledge


I've already given a broader response regarding how I feel about book burning. In this specific case, it sounds like an expression of butthurt more than anything.

funeralxempire wrote:
The threat it poses is largely determined by the scale. Burning a handful of copies of a book that's been broadly published and widely distributed is effective for it's symbolism and doesn't really pose a threat to the existence of that specific piece of work (Bible, Quran, Jurassic Park, etc). Attempting to annihilate every single copy of a specific piece of work is much more concerning. When the state is the actor leading or encouraging the book-burning, that's another factor that makes it much more concerning.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning. — Warren Buffett


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

15 Oct 2019, 8:39 pm

Over the course of history people all over the world have burned many different kinds of things as a sign of protest.

People who are clearly obsessed with Hitler are going to go on and on about nazis every chance they get.



DoTheTw1zt
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 13 Oct 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 230

15 Oct 2019, 8:42 pm

And there were plenty of Germans being roasted alive by flamethrowers during World War 2. So maybe Frued was right?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Oct 2019, 1:54 am

DoTheTw1zt wrote:
And there were plenty of Germans being roasted alive by flamethrowers during World War 2. So maybe Frued was right?


The jobs not done

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkrwUzWeACg&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbkrwUzWeACg&has_verified=1



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,983
Location: Long Island, New York

16 Oct 2019, 3:15 am

sly279 wrote:
There’s not law against it there is one against burning the flag.

Flag burning is protected speech
Texas v. Johnson
Quote:
Texas v. Johnson, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 1989, that the burning of the U.S. flag was a constitutionally protected form of speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

the Supreme Court released a controversial 5–4 ruling in which it upheld the appeals court decision that desecration of the U.S. flag was constitutionally protected, calling the First Amendment’s protection of speech a “bedrock principle” and stating that the government could not prohibit “expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., noted for his liberal jurisprudence, wrote the majority opinion and was joined by fellow liberals Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, as well as by conservatives Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,209
Location: Right over your left shoulder

16 Oct 2019, 3:40 am

cyberdad wrote:
mikeeesssan wrote:
Cyberdad regarding light-skinned Aborigine people did Australia have this thing of the one drop rule regarding Aborigine as was the case in America? with the one-drop rule for black blood and being officially defined thus In the past law in the States still custom.


Yeah we had it too...across the colonies...one drop tainted the bloodline


Interesting, in Canada the policies were written to ensure as few people as possible might qualify as 'treaty Indians'. My grandma's children were initially ineligible to be recognized because her husband was a white guy. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that was an unreasonable limitation and that since the children of a man who qualified would qualify regardless of the mother's ancestry that it was unreasonable and unfair to deny status when the genders were reversed (like my grandparents). I forget when that changed, but it was within my lifetime (90s era, I think).

Historically you couldn't vote if you were a 'treaty Indian', either you could vote or you could receive treaty provisions. This isn't the case anymore, but as far as I know turnouts are still pretty low among indigenous people in Canada relative to other demographic groups.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning. — Warren Buffett


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Oct 2019, 5:02 am

funeralxempire wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
mikeeesssan wrote:
Cyberdad regarding light-skinned Aborigine people did Australia have this thing of the one drop rule regarding Aborigine as was the case in America? with the one-drop rule for black blood and being officially defined thus In the past law in the States still custom.


Yeah we had it too...across the colonies...one drop tainted the bloodline


Interesting, in Canada the policies were written to ensure as few people as possible might qualify as 'treaty Indians'. My grandma's children were initially ineligible to be recognized because her husband was a white guy. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that was an unreasonable limitation and that since the children of a man who qualified would qualify regardless of the mother's ancestry that it was unreasonable and unfair to deny status when the genders were reversed (like my grandparents). I forget when that changed, but it was within my lifetime (90s era, I think).

Historically you couldn't vote if you were a 'treaty Indian', either you could vote or you could receive treaty provisions. This isn't the case anymore, but as far as I know turnouts are still pretty low among indigenous people in Canada relative to other demographic groups.


In Australia our indigenous population came under the same federal government jurisdiction that looked after flora and fauna!

It wasn't until 1967 that Australian aborigines were allowed to vote. There's still an indigenous affairs department.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,209
Location: Right over your left shoulder

16 Oct 2019, 5:05 am

cyberdad wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
mikeeesssan wrote:
Cyberdad regarding light-skinned Aborigine people did Australia have this thing of the one drop rule regarding Aborigine as was the case in America? with the one-drop rule for black blood and being officially defined thus In the past law in the States still custom.


Yeah we had it too...across the colonies...one drop tainted the bloodline


Interesting, in Canada the policies were written to ensure as few people as possible might qualify as 'treaty Indians'. My grandma's children were initially ineligible to be recognized because her husband was a white guy. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled that was an unreasonable limitation and that since the children of a man who qualified would qualify regardless of the mother's ancestry that it was unreasonable and unfair to deny status when the genders were reversed (like my grandparents). I forget when that changed, but it was within my lifetime (90s era, I think).

Historically you couldn't vote if you were a 'treaty Indian', either you could vote or you could receive treaty provisions. This isn't the case anymore, but as far as I know turnouts are still pretty low among indigenous people in Canada relative to other demographic groups.


In Australia our indigenous population came under the same federal government jurisdiction that looked after flora and fauna!

It wasn't until 1967 that Australian aborigines were allowed to vote. There's still an indigenous affairs department.


Here too, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is the current name.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning. — Warren Buffett


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

16 Oct 2019, 5:12 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
sly279 wrote:
There’s not law against it there is one against burning the flag.

Flag burning is protected speech
Texas v. Johnson
Quote:
Texas v. Johnson, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 1989, that the burning of the U.S. flag was a constitutionally protected form of speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

the Supreme Court released a controversial 5–4 ruling in which it upheld the appeals court decision that desecration of the U.S. flag was constitutionally protected, calling the First Amendment’s protection of speech a “bedrock principle” and stating that the government could not prohibit “expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., noted for his liberal jurisprudence, wrote the majority opinion and was joined by fellow liberals Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, as well as by conservatives Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.


I’m aware of the ruling. So is book burning. Better question. Is what can’t be considered protected free speech.
It’s hypocritical to say flag burning is ok but book burning isn’t if it’s a left leaning author.
The flag means a lot to way more people that that stupid book. Hundreds of thousands died for that flag and our rights it. It’s not just a flag they burn.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die