You know what I really hate?
People who are against burning books.
…
Maybe I should start again.
The other day, I saw a post about somebody asking how to “ethically” dispose of books written by an objectionable author. They asked, because they refused to burn books. This strikes me as besides the point.
But it did get me wondering.
If you’re asking the internet message boards what the right thing to do is, I’m not convinced it’s about doing the right thing. It might be more about doing the “right” thing, which is to say the “ethical” thing, which is to say doing whatever is most likely to have the imaginary Greek Chorus in your head stand up and applaud.
So you wind up following rules that are more about optics than they are morality, which is how you wind up misunderstanding what morality is to begin with (don’t ask me, I’m not sure either), and instead of trying to do the right thing, you end up following a rule, because a rule is simple, measurable, and true across the board.
So instead of being concerned about the suppression and censorship of complicated or dangerous or nuanced or objectionable ideas….
You end up concerned about the safety of dead trees and ink.
Because it’s much easier to say “Burning books is an immoral act,” something you will never be called on to defend, then it is to deal with the real issue, the gray area around artists you aren’t willing to support, and the complicated feelings there. Artists who will always be available via the second hand market or online, artists who aren’t making financial profit off the books you’ve already bought, regardless of how you dispose of their books.
The burning of books is not the issue here.
It’s the symbol we grew to represent ideas of tolerance and curiosity. Then, because symbols are easier than ideas, it replaced them.
Now, so long as you protect dead trees, the people watching will know you’re a good person.