posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 02:31 AM
Bizar how this thread is evolving. Yet, it also goes to show how contentious this subject is.
What stands out is the fact that it is judgement or perhaps better said: regional zeitgeist that is so apparent.
Take the word: offensive. I feel like totally offended. Or my favorite I heard a few weeks back from a woman responding to a simple question of a
Trainer of Syrian decent to a woman of Nicaragua: are you Asian? Your eyes are somewhat like that. Her response was a genuine smile and said: it might
look like that but I hail from Middle America.
The other woman said: his question is bordering offensive.
My goodness. This relentlessly busybodying on what should be considered offensive or even bordering offensive, is simply amazing.
I asked her: have you checked if the Nicaraguan woman is offended? She looked at me bewildered as if that was needed at all. I imparted some words to
the wise: perhaps you should first ask before mounting your high horse of moral ineptitude, and asked the Nicaraguan woman if indeed she felt
offended. She looked at me surprised and said: no not at all, he was simply inquiring and learning.
I let out a little sigh of relief. Fortunately, there are still people around who are ( not yet?) infected with this insidious virus that destroys any
Taking offense is a personal choice, yet, it seems to me, is very useful to those people who are more than averagely self absorbed, as if the world
turns because they can formulate a string of words.
Interestingly, this woman, exclaiming bordering offensive, hates my guts for calling her out on her own stupidity.
So to me, I do not mind books of all kinds to exist. Some, indeed, may contain material that can be considered offensive, dangerous to national
security, undesired. Note the container quality.
And truth be told, we as an society, once had a period in time where not only books were burned, but the people who entrusted those ideas for
posterity, we're put on trial by the holy inquisition and threatened to recant.
Those threats usually amounted to autodafe.
After enlightenment period, are we to revert back to those days, by instituting the same type of behaviour?
Since the written word speeds around the world in parts of a second, lightning speed when compared to the middle ages, where ink was an expensive
luxury and only the rich could afford having a book, what reason could there be to restrict the written word by instituting book burning?
Individual responsibility for what to read and write seems to be exchanged for group think and compliance, where tribal obeisance is pursued with a
What a mess.
Burning a book is as symbolic as is burning a flag and can exert a powerful influence. Yet, in my view, replacing group think with individual choice
for whatever reason is crossing the Rubicon, that should never happen.
But it sure sounds democratic.