• Thoth19@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 years ago

        But didn’t this recent influx of burnings start when an Iranian refugee burned the quaran in protest against the government he fled from? This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with skin color.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Let’s step back and see what this teaches people:

    If you threaten violence, and are known to actually commit violence over something stupid, governments will bend to your will.

    Is this REALLY the message we want to send? Instead of pandering to these religious clowns, come down hard on anyone who threatens violence - zero tolerance for this shit. Either enter the 21st century and turn your back on ass-backwards caveman thinking, or go back to the the shithole countries that you came from where murdering people over a stupid book is allowed.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    If I don’t like a student’s work, would I be allowed to burn a copy of it in front of their peers? Nope, it would probably get me fired as it would be seen as personal animosity towards a student.

    How about the work of another academic? Sketchy ground - I’d have to genuinely hate them to consider their work as worth nothing more than smoke. Then again, I should probably burn a copy of the original anti-vax “paper” to make a point to students about bad studies and how scholars feel about such authors. I suspect my inbox would be filled with anti-vax hate by the end of the day if it reached social media.

    Overall, I’d argue that book burning shouldn’t be banned, but also that it isn’t effective. All it does is hand corrupt theocracies the cry of “see, those heathen book burners hate you all - you should purge them in holy fire”. It doesn’t drive change towards a more progressive government, and merely ensures that the rule of dictatorship finds its way to our shores.

    It is a protest that defeats itself.

  • generalpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    I can’t believe people are arguing for burning books here like medieval morons. Torah, Quran, Bible, Encyclopedia, doesn’t matter. If it incites violence and civil unrest, it should be controlled and people should be discouraged from it. This is no different than literally any other law. Wtf?

    • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Some people believe that women should be under the supervision of a man at all times. Not doing so might incite civil unrest. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at no appeasements because unless people have it their they will keep complaining. Teaching them that outrage gets results is a moral hazard.

      • generalpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        People can chose to believe whatever they want. It’s the actions and the consequences that matter in a society. If burning a book becomes an act of inciting violence, then it should be reviewed, discussed and a law should come out of it as a consequence which discourages such an act. That’s how civilized societies should work which deem equality as a fundamental right for everyone.

        Your hypothetical scenario is just that and we can spend days going back and forth. We are talking about a real problem here.

        • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Ok so in your views the consequences of appeasement are hypothetical. And we should continuously consider what needs to be changed and empower those who commit violence to effect more changes to suit their beliefs.

          In reality the consequences can be more severe than whatever you sought to prevent

          • generalpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            I said what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to pick apart my words in an attempt to forge an argument which has no merit.

            • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous

              Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      So if I cause enough of a problem I can bend the will of the government.

      I’m going to create a religion that gets offended that you exist, and we’ll riot until that’s illegal then?

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Do you really think those 2 positions are equivalent?

        Like the difference between somebody being racist and somebody being offended by an action designed to offend them? Also plenty of religions don’t like certain groups and protest about them but we don’t give in because the world is not black and white like that. Conceding that maybe allowing people to burn religious texts of the biggest religions in the world for the sole purpose of offending those people is not a productive thing to allow in a modern society does not mean we must then concede every demand any religious body makes.

      • generalpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        If there’s a group of people with a legitimate concern, a government should hear you out and make an assessment.

        You as a single person can choose to do whatever you want within reason and what’s permitted by law.

        You can continue to misconstrue this further however you like, but burning books is barbaric. We’re past that point as civilized society. But feel free to continue to argue for it behind the veneer of “freedom” or whatever else you can come up with.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Burning individual instances of a book for artistic or political purposes, or just because you want to, is not barbaric.

          Burning all copies of a book to remove it from circulation and prevent the spread of those ideas is barbaric.

          • generalpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Loud concerts are actual form of artistic expression yet there are laws in some cities that prevent loud music past 9/10pm.

            Why? Because it bothers people and interferes with their lives. This is no different.

            Also, I find it amusing that you think burning a book is an “artistic expression”. What’s next? Taking a shit is an artistic expression?

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              People do that too.

              Loud concerts are about proximity. I’d definitely say no burning a Bible in front of a church. But if you can be easily ignored by the offended party, then you shouldn’t be stopped.

        • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          burning books is barbaric

          Yeah should be punished by stoning or something…

          • generalpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Context and words must be hard for you. Sorry to heat that. Would you like a tissue or a shoulder to cry on?

    • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      The violence is already there, this just somehow compels it to show it.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think that’s reasonable, given the circumstances.

    Just because we have freedoms doesn’t mean everyone does. So when we burn one of their books, without the context of that same freedom that we have, they don’t really necessarily understand what we’re trying to say. Just that we hate their sacred book.

    We’re really trying to say more than that though, we don’t hate the book, we hate the actions some people do in its name. I don’t think that always gets communicated though, since they don’t necessarily follow our news.

    • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Nah, Islamism (not Islam) promotes an extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them. And guess what? Islamism is thriving in Muslim countries

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 years ago

                Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.

                And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.

                • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.

                  Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.

                  And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.

                Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.

            • Windex007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.

              Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.

              And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.

              So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Reasonable, and extremely simple person, maybe. I see what you’re saying though. Similar to the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” thing.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them.

        It’s a method of control.

        Cults and totalitarian leaders rely on creating an “us vs them” mentality where they paint the outside world as evil people who “hate” the cult members and want to harm them. So they will stay in the cult.

        A bunch of westerners desecrating their region’s sacred texts is exactly what Islamicist leaders like to see because it visually corroborates the worldview they are trying to instill in their people.

    • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah great idea to let literally insane people force policy on us through threats and violence. It’s only reasonable.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s an infinitely copyable book with it’s source material thousands of miles away outside of the local country. There is no potential for this to totally wipe out the literature. No one is being harmed by the burning of said literature, therefore it’s a peaceful form of protest.

      Trying to stop peaceful protest isn’t something you can pick and choose, you are either ok with it or you’re not. Deciding what is and isn’t ok to protest about means you don’t actually believe in the freedom of protest.