111–120 of 396 posts
[flagged]
Your thought experiment asks: what if the banned book library contained out-of-print white supremacist books instead of historically banned books? The answer should be obvious: it would be a white supremacist library. Given that the present administration includes fans of those books, their banning seems unlikely. Perhaps a refresher on the kinds of books that are presently under threat is in order? https://www.ala.o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books Yes, many people are either unaware of, or willing participants in, this lie. That doesn't make it any less of a lie.
It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate. You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CCTVs operate in networks and use gait recognition, those hoodies are snake oil. You suggest to just teleport out after the installation, I presume?
Nobody is doing "gait analysis" over this. The FBI investigating a bombing? Yeah. State cops investigating a murder? 50/50 odds? Local cops investigating someone swapping out a fucking lightbulb? No.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone named tinfoilhatter replied but that's gone now. Not one to let a response go to waste: Well. I seem to have triggered something. > Ah yes, because the only people that have ever spread propaganda are Neo-Nazis Not something I ever said or implied. > and we should only ever learn about the sanitized and approved version of history from our Robert Maxwell (Ghislane Maxwell's Mossad agent father / McGraw Hill c…
[flagged]
We're only talking about one political group here. The group that published The Turner Diaries. The group that can't help but mention who's Jewish. Bringing up other groups is a distraction tactic, aside from how dishonest it is. Yes, we are taught that everyone did morally questionable things in WWII. But only one group ran a Dachau.
> How is the owner of the second largest publisher of textbooks in the US, and the fact that he served in a Zionist intelligence organization in the US, irrelevant when it comes to what people learn about WWII and propaganda? Please explain.
OK, let's get down to brass tacks: Do you think people only believe the Holocaust happened and was bad because a Jewish man published a lot of textbooks?
> Are you disputing the well-recorded fact that tens of millions of innocents were killed by the Bolsheviks over the span of about 40 years?
Are you disputing the fact eleven million people were killed by a concerted effort on the part of Nazi Germany to eliminate people it considered subhuman for various reasons?
I don't dispute the vile stain on the history of state Communism. I hate Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Hoxha and Kim Il-Sung just as much as the next normal person. But we're talking about why someone wouldn't distribute The Turner Diaries and, I have to say, the Communists didn't commit that little literary peccadillo.
> Why don't we learn about the Holodomor in the US in grade school?
Because there are fewer people waving hammer-and-sickle flags around than there are spray-painting swastikas on synagogues and Raising Questions about whether the Holocaust was so bad after all.
> I never said you did - but if it were me, I'd want to make sure I considered both sides of a historical event before deciding which direction to aim my hatred, if I was into such endeavors.
That's funny, the more I learn about WWII the less I feel the Nazis had a legitimate side. They were a bunch of losers lead around by a drugged-up corporal who ran his country into the ground with gross mismanagement to the point Germany, once the jewel of European science and industry, was split in half and lived a shadow existence as the puppet of two world powers for a half century after his reign.
> I personally believe that war is a racket, and that there are no good guys in evil and corrupt wars (WWII was definitely one of those, same with WWI).
The corruption in WWII was the starting of it, which falls directly at the feet of the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Self-defense is not corruption, and neither is ending the reign of expansionist tyrants. Or do you think people don't have the right to defend themselves from your pet dictators?
> I'm also not naive enough to believe that there wasn't atrocious behavior on both sides of either war.
Only one side ran death camps. Both sides imprisoned people unjustly, but only one side turned them into ashes. It doesn't balance out.
> Nor am I going to label anyone who has the gall to question the prevailing narrative or say it is incorrect in some capacity, a Neo-Nazi.
No, the only people I call Neo-Nazis are the ones triggered when I say the Nazis were, on the whole, bad for everyone around them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wheelchair yourself in and out.
I get it's a joke but in case someone thinks it'ss serious, unless you install it literally in the middle of nowhere with no CCTVs and also no one to connect to it, you will only stand out more in the crowd as you make your escape...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate. You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.
[flagged]
Just because you decided to interpret something one way, doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice by the other party, nor does it mean your interpretation is common.
> technically you're not actually lying.
What did I say that you consider a lie? Could you quote me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get it's a joke but in case someone thinks it'ss serious, unless you install it literally in the middle of nowhere with no CCTVs and also no one to connect to it, you will only stand out more in the crowd as you make your escape...
Put dollar store lamp with enabled lightbulb in backpack. Enter library. Scope out cameras. Find outlet in blind spot. Install lamp and bulb. Drop hints like qr sticky notes, or riddles like don't ban books, turn ur bulb on. WinRAR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Banned books" is the colloquial term for these books Yes, many people are either unaware of, or willing participants in, this lie. That doesn't make it any less of a lie.
It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate. You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.
And even in high schools screening R-rated movies is generally heavily restricted. Where it is allowed, it generally requires a permission slip from the parents. And that's not like showing gratuitous films, but ones with historically relevant and educational context like e.g. Schindler's List.
So why is it unreasonable for parents (or other interested parties) to be against having such material in a children's library? In many ways its quite odd that a rating system was never adopted for books. And for one other question, do you even see a difference between these sort of books being restricted from schools, and other books whose content would be generally be rated appropriate for children, being banned on political/ideological basis? Because to me the difference is not only tremendous but the defining issue here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when it's banned by the federal government.
So if a book is banned by a widespread movement of extremists taking control of local governing bodies and the federal government is not involved, that's okay then?
that was the only point I was making. Mein Kraft, Selected Works of Lmao The Dong, and The Anarchist Cookbook may be removed from sale/access in some specific locations, but it is very much legal to buy, own, and sell them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note that I don't necessarily agree with the subject matter of these titles Y'know, there's really only one reason to be coy about whether you agree with Neo-Nazi propaganda.
[flagged]
Those of us who paid attention certainly did.