Great books are great, no doubt. And yet it may be sorely underscored the change the author undergoes, and the vibrations they emit for having gained the peak is at very least equally as profound.
To burn books we must already be burning inside.....this error of the way is the signature of our time, try as we might to escape it. One cannot legislate good behavior.
Book banning reminds me of something some philosopher historian I read at some point said. Something like..."Totalitarianism is more a spirit than a movement." The point the writer was making was that no one kind of system or government or religion has a monopoly on it. From the Inquisition to the USSR to the Harper Valley PTA to some "woke" campus somewhere, (powerful) people just can't shake the belief that some information is just THREATENING. It's a perennial superstition.
We still have the issues of what doesn't get published or what doesn't get purchased at all. I edit a bit on Wikipedia and it has some websites as unacceptable for citations. So even when we do our best there is information that doesn't flow.
Great books are great, no doubt. And yet it may be sorely underscored the change the author undergoes, and the vibrations they emit for having gained the peak is at very least equally as profound.
To burn books we must already be burning inside.....this error of the way is the signature of our time, try as we might to escape it. One cannot legislate good behavior.
Book burning/banning will dumb down society. If you can ban MAUS, ban the Bible in public libraries.
Yes, a lot on LGBTQ books, but MAUS is just as concerning.
This is the second big go-round on Maus, after the one in the 80's which was the last big surge of US censorship. I have seen this movie before.
elm
and you posted a mauldin, yay!
Ban no books, full stop. You don't have to keep the smut out front.
elm
library extremist
Book banning reminds me of something some philosopher historian I read at some point said. Something like..."Totalitarianism is more a spirit than a movement." The point the writer was making was that no one kind of system or government or religion has a monopoly on it. From the Inquisition to the USSR to the Harper Valley PTA to some "woke" campus somewhere, (powerful) people just can't shake the belief that some information is just THREATENING. It's a perennial superstition.
We still have the issues of what doesn't get published or what doesn't get purchased at all. I edit a bit on Wikipedia and it has some websites as unacceptable for citations. So even when we do our best there is information that doesn't flow.