Simply Delusional. They live in their own fictional timeline. Their whole narrative is build on the West and the US coming after them. They have no story on their own. Their whole existing materialized in everything from behind their border while their own country internally is rotting in lies.
I am against the burning of books disguised as freedom of speech.
It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!
The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.
I feel it is a very marginal impact into freedom of speech. I can not remember a single occasion where I had to burn a book to be able to articulate my thoughts.
I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?
But it’s just religious books. You can burn Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” or Kant’s “Was ist Aufklärung”. But you aren’t allowed to burn a bible or the koran?
It is bad for the environment. Too much co2 production in the process. If you must destroy books, recycle them!
The CO2 produced by this is extremely marginal. Some single occasions of this won’t have significant impact. Despite that: books tend to rot after a while, thereby releasing the stored CO2 anyway.
The Nazis did this very popularly. I always get reminded of that, when people burn books.
The Christians also burned books on multiple occasions. As did the communist revolution under Mao Zedong and a bunch of other lunatics throughout history. If we should agree that burning books (as a form of protest) is a bad thing, then include all books and not just some religious ones.
I agree with your third point. However, it’s a very visual and “spectacular” (meaning it draws attention) way of protest.
I think most countries ban burning houses, even if it is infringing the freedom of speech. Why should it be different with books?
Burning houses does significantly more damage and poses high risks of further collateral damage than burning a book. Moreover, houses usually don’t carry and spread ideologic views.
Houses are not a medium to spread information. A book is , it means something so it is speech. Just like burning the US flag is allow because the first amendment allow us to judge and say fuck to our government.
in the US it is allowed. In many countries it is not alloeed to burn flags in public.
But in the US it also counts as free speech to bribe politicians and disrupt funerals for gay soldiers KIA so i am not sure the US has the best approach to free speech.
Y’see, back in the day parents were not technically literate because the world was mid-societal shift. “Protect the children” (because parents are unable to) had some justification.
Today, basic computer literacy is a survival skill in the UK. The level of literacy needed to track your own kid is not that high (or expensive to rent).
If you are letting kids use tech you don’t understand, and are not willing to invest the time/money to track yourself, that’s a you problem. It shouldn’t become a me problem.
As for “yeah but what about smart kids”, I’ve got some bad news for you. They will always find a way around ANYTHING you set up.
Exactly. I was 17 teaching my parents about internet shit. I wasn’t smart, I still aren’t, but I also wasn’t. Anyway, the amount ov viruses I had to fix because of them downloading kenny_chesney.exe is… baffling.
I really feel very uncomfortable with the notion of tracking the kids anyway. Arming them with knowledge as best as possible, and as usual showing interest in their behaviour to try and look as best as possible for signs of problems but ultimately kids are still people with their own lives even if people in development. Yes you need to protect them, to a certain extent, but ultimately some of this is no business but their own. You can try to educate and forewarn and hope some of it sticks but the tendency from my memory of being a kid is that that tends to be met with an eye-roll, this is probably where the temptation comes from to track children or drastically restrict the choices they’re able to make so they can’t ignore you but this is hardly a great way for that person in development to ultimately… develop.
This is dicey though, not least because as yet another random person on the internet offering their unsolicited opinion, I don’t even have kids, and if you follow my logic to extremis, you basically have, “let the kids just figure it out on their own they’ll be fine” which definitely won’t apply to everything and can have disastrous consequences in some contexts. But nevertheless I think this concept of tracking, either covertly, or overtly with the intention of making a kind of panopticon effect for the kids, is likely ineffective but even if effective, is indicative of something going wrong with the intent of the surveillance.
It’s a tricky one because of the nature of the net. Let’s say we have three kids: Timmy, Jimmy and Harry.
Timmy starts looking up “tits”, because Timmy loves titties. He’s curious, and you probably want to have a talk about acting and how porn isn’t reality.
Jimmy, well, Jimmy saw a videogame character tied up and it made him feel good, so he starts looking for that online. He’s about to explore the BDSM scene. He’s going to need the “safe sane consensual” talk, otherwise his explorations might get him, or someone else, hurt. He’ll need more of a talk than Timmy!
Harry loves hentai; he found some when looking for pictures of his favourite cartoon character. Harry is going to need a long talk about fantasy Vs reality, otherwise he’s going to disappoint a lot of women! Wait a moment, most of the things he’s looking at involve animals and women… Might be time to get some therapy!
In all three of these cases a different style and level of parental intervention was required. You watch your kids because they’re kids, and kids are experts at getting themselves (and others) hurt. Parents need to watch their kids because it’s their job to intervene, and to decide the method of intervention.
However, we’ve not gone over the case of Lizzy, a girl cursed with religious fundamentalist parents. When they find out she’s more interested in girls than boys, she’ll be subjected to inhumane treatment to “fix” her. So there is a grey area here - not all parents should be parents.
They would just exempt themselves from it as they did with both reporting on people accessing porn using the HoP network and with the investigatory powers bill.
bbc.co.uk
Newest