More pointless book burning

Book burning? Not necessarily
Even if the building was intentionally torched that doesn’t mean that it was done specifically to destroy the books. Firebugs aren’t especially particular about what they burn just so long as they watch the flames dancing. Let’s leave the unwarranted assumptions up to our fundamentalist brethren, shall we?

Re:Book burning? Not necessarily

Books burned, right? It was pointless, eh? Therefore, I stand by my Pointless Book Burning title.

You may stand by it all you want, it is still wrong. Book burning, like flag burning, is a specific political act; in this case an act of anti-intellectualism. Unless the arsonist specifically torched the building to destroy the books it was not a book burning. One could as easily say that it was an attack against transnational capitalism because a couple of tons of coffee was destroyed, but that still doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Non-political torching of print materials. It happens, dude.

Yeah, except that if it was accidental then it wasn’t a book burning, dude; just a fire.

Re:Definitions

You’re having an argument over definitions. Rochelle is using a looser set than you are. Deal. You can point out that she’s using a more lyrical/poetical (or whatever) language, but you shouldn’t say, ‘wrong’.

The problem I have with Rochelle’s use of “book burning” in that context is that it is misrepresentative; in effect: wrong. And the more I study communications and the contemporary press media the more sensitive I become to misrepresentative material. Misrepresentation is also the hallmark of the censor. In that regard, if we use language incorrectly, then the ultra-religious can use our “loose” definitions as ammunition against us. Just look at the way they do that in “creationist science”.

Perhaps Rochelle was waxing lyrical. I haven’t corresponded enough with her to know, but the way her message came across pressed a nerve.