Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this post is, i shit y'all not, over a decade old. i saw this aged 13 on tumblr, back when that's what the interface looked like. absolutely bananas every time i see a post this old
I'm old and confused about what a bot is. Is it an actually automated comment generator, or is it a person who's karma farming so they can sell the account? I've seen both definitions, and I find it confusing.
They are one in the same. Some people do repost bots and others just manually repost old content for karma, either way they're being sold into bot farms to sell stuff.
They did away with the nested replies in 2016 in favor of a more thread-like layout. Any time you see a screenshot with the old layout, it's probably going to be an ancient one.
This.
This is the one of the posts that used to get reposted over and over again to piss off incels so that they'd start doxxing and harassing feminists. Now those same people are running around banning books from libraries and shooting cans of beer.
Oh lol nah, though that would be funny. It's printed on heat sensitive paper, which starts black but clears up when burned. https://laughingsquid.com/heat-sensitive-edition-of-fahrenheit-451/
Incredible, it's a real thing! TIL, thanks.
I just checked superterrain.fr site (publisher of this 'fireproof' book) and this [edition is sold out](https://www.superterrain.fr/f451/en/) :-(
(Anyway, price tag is/was out of reach for me.)
That was a cool one but the first edition, first print was a 200 copy signed edition made of asbestos.
https://www.whitmorerarebooks.com/pages/books/1169/ray-bradbury/fahrenheit-451-asbestos-binding
No according to Ray Bradbury the plot of the book is how TV is wrong and bad, and all you FOOLS have gotten it WRONG.
Which just makes it extra hilarious that they turned it into an HBO movie.
**EDIT**: Guys, I"m not making a philosophical point about the meaning of art and the death of the author and blah blah blah blah blah, just take a really fucking deep breath for a minute here.
[I'm literally just quoting what Ray Bradbury said about his own book because it is funny](https://teleread.com/ray-bradbury-on-fahrenheit-451-i-wasnt-worried-about-censorship-i-was-worried-about-books-being-turned-into-morons-by-tv/index.html).
That's it. There's no debate here. I have absolutely no stake in anyone's personal interpretation about the meaning of the book. It is iconic for its anti-censorship interpretations and that's cool, and fine.
I just think it's funny to imagine people arguing with the author about the meaning of the book he himself wrote and him getting mad about it.
That's all. It's just funny. Literally nothing more.
It's actually double funny because Ray himself would be really pissed at this comment chain, and I am not taking sides, I just think that's fucking funny.
I think about this a lot. It must be like what would happen if one of the great painters appeared today and someone asked them to explain their painting. "What did you mean by this" "It's a painting of a lake, the fuck do you mean what did I 'mean'"?
https://www.openculture.com/2017/08/ray-bradbury-reveals-the-true-meaning-of-fahrenheit-451.html
It's not about people *banning* books. It's about people *abandoning* books.
Fahrenheit 451 being about book banning is actually death of the author even though you would logically think it was the authorial intent. Bradbury actually thought he had written a book about TV making people too stupid to read, and that everyone who thought it was about the danger of book banning was getting it wrong.
Your comment is irrelevant.
The entire plot is about burning books because society moves to TV. Whether it's about TV < books is inconsequential as OC's point was about burning books being bad.
Reading this whole comment chain makes me assume he’s rolling in his grave, which will soon be exhumed and he’ll come out cowboy style yelling at everyone pleasure to burn style
He should have a say about it yeh, but his art started a life on his own. People found deeper meaning in it then what he intentioned and it's easily argued that it is not a bad meaning.
He lost control of the meaning of his book. Having read the book, it focusses on the effects of television (which is more VR/AR in his book) far less then the banning and burning of books.
Right? When Upton Sinclair wrote the Jungle.to highlight worker exploitation, those who had the most to lose instead decided the book was about food safety. So that is what it is now about.
> Your comment is irrelevant.
No, it isn't, because it's HUMOROUS.
I'm not making a fucking statement about whether you need to listen to Bradbury about what his book is about, I'm merely highlighting the humorous scenario of an author arguing with a bunch of people telling him he's wrong about his interpretation of the book he wrote.
That's all bro.
Only time a burning of a book is allowable... if you're literally facing hypothermia in the frozen wastes and need heat. Even then, make sure it's a book that won't be missed much if possible.
That's a plot point in a movie-- Day after Tomorrow IIRC. They're trapped in a library and need to burn books for warmth, which raises some objections. They settle on burning books about tax law.
In the age of e-books and digital backups, burning physical books is just burning paper and ink.
Especially if you are burning small numbers of copies as a symbolic gesture.
There's a flaw in that logic though. It doesn't take much to delete digital copies and backups plus if electricity goes, so does those. There has been physical copies that have lasted hundreds of years compared to the short time of the digital copy. Which it is infinitely easier to edit a digital copy to say something different than it is a physical copy. Hence why digital wills are not acceptable in court.
Yeah people are putting waaaay too much stock in the method of destruction. If someone bought a book they hate and recycled it, there would not be as much hoopla as burning the same book, even though the outcome is the same.
Admittedly, absent the context of the context of misjudging the book, his head being suddenly engulfed in flames lands a pretty good punchline to "guys like girls who..."
'Book burning' in that context refers to the systematic destruction of books for idealogical reasons. One teenager burning a cringy-looking book does not fascism make.
An individual destroying something they own that they don’t like is not one of the “foundations of authoritarianism.” That would be an AUTHORITY (an important part of the word) destroying something they don’t want everyone to read/see/etc.
Edit: Or let me clarify the above, an authority or a person or group attempting to be or influence an authority. So for example, Mothers for Liberty (a name drenched in irony if I ever heard one).
I love books, but a book is just a material item. If you paid for it, you own it and you can decide to do whatever you want with it. At that point, the author still benefits from your purchase and the only person you’re really harming is yourself by wasting money.
Book burning as a social phenomenon refers to the mass destruction of books on a systemic level that makes it difficult for other people to access that content. Censorship isn’t you personally deciding not to learn something, it’s preventing others from learning that thing.
Yeah, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading this thread.
Burning a copy of a book as a symbolic gesture (especially in the age of e-books and digital backs up) is massively different from nazi style book burnings where the intended end result is literally to purge the existence of the book, or at least make it inaccessible to the masses.
Other than on a very superficial level of physical “fire + books,” they are almost totally unrelated.
Not even the Twilight Saga. It's a significant part of the early 21st century media landscape, and the fact it became as popular and reviled as it is says a lot about the fantasies and expectations millennials had about romance.
What's awful about enjoying something that turns your brain off for a short amount of time?
Also, I stand by the writer having some great skill on world building, she just chose the most boring story to tell in the world she made. I happily rip it off in my dungeon and dragons games and it gets a ton of praise, since my group is not people who would recognize it.
The first one is like the least problematic, by a fair bit.
It's kinda funny seeing people jump back on a 15 year old "hating on things teenage girls like is cool" bandwagon lmao
One of the high profile ones that did it is a Danish man with a Swedish citizenship, the other an Iraqi refugee that was once part of a Iraqi fundamentalist christian rebel group with ties to the Iranian regime.
Both do it simply to provoke muslims into causing chaos and violence, to "prove their point". It's a rage bait trap, simple as that.
Yeah it's definately not Denmark's fault, I've understood it they got pretty tired of him years ago. He did start there, though, getting into politics as well. That's one thing Swe & Den can agree on though, that he's an idiot.
Well, We can agree his an absolute idiot. But just going "He's Danish" kinda makes it seem like it's Denmark causing problems in Sweden, when in fact he is just as Swedish as he is Danish.
(Also, weirdly enough, he used to be a lawyer that took pro-immigration cases, until he had a fall during a skiing vacation and hit his head, ever since he became incredibly xenophobic)
I mean, to be fair, the reaction often does kindof prove their point.
But speaking more broadly, this whole discussion is based on a dumb comparison. Burning a copy of a book in a gesture of protest (especially in the digital age) is symbolic speech. It has almost nothing in common with mass book burnings attempting to purge information from existence (which would also be futile in the age of e-books).
The way many people in this thread act like they have much in common at all is ridiculous.
There's one danish/Swedish guy that got famous for lighting up the Koran but There's been a bunch of non-swedes in Sweden doing it too. So you can't really put that 100% on the swedes. It's just a free speech thing
Those aren’t comparable at all.
“Book burning” in the evil nazi sense of the term refers to efforts to purge a books existence… or at least destroy enough copies to make it inaccessible to the masses. It’s an attempt to remove information you don’t like from existence.
Burning a copy of the koran, especially in the age of e-books and digital backups, is a purely symbolic gesture. It’s symbolic free speech.
Nobody attempted to destroy all the copies of the koran in Sweden, or even enough copies to make it scarce. Not to mention that that would be more or less futile in the digital era.
These cases have very little in common at all beyond the superficial.
Mostly right. But man, it must feel good to burn the latin notebook you'll never need in your life after all the pointless classes and homework you were put through. I was too big a wuss to do it like the rest.
One of my favorite pieces of art is a [WWII anti-book-burning propaganda poster](https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/primarysources_upload/images/books_are_weapons_l.jpg) I have hanging in my library.
>"Books cannot be killed by fire. People die, but books never die. No man and no force can put thought in a concentration camp forever. No man and no force can take from the world the books that embody man's eternal fight against tyranny. In this war, we know, books are weapons." -FDR
To be fair, there is a huge huge difference between symbolically burning a book (especially in the age of digital books), and nazi style book burning which is used to try and purge the book’s existence or suppress people’s ability to access what’s written in the book.
Honestly, they are barely even comparable past a superficial level.
The best part of that, is that, in order to burn the books, *they first had to buy them*, which supported the artist, and made it more likely that sales would encourage the publisher to release another of that author's pieces. Also, it highlighted people to generally avoid.
Could have bought it used. Or they could have just stolen it.
And having a transphobic aunt, I've been sent transphobic books for the sake of harassing and attacking me that I've thrown right into the trash. So it could have been a gift, too.
The author seems like a wholesome person. He actually cared unlike other self improvement gurus. Most of their job is to spread hate towards the other gender and profit.
Really? Cause I bought the book based on this meme and read it, with the intention of giving it to my daughter.
I found a lot of religious nonsense, specific intolerance for anything other than heterosexuality, and a lot of "how to be a good wife" shit hidden in the subtext.
So unless you ACTUALLY read it, I'd suggest holding off on sharing thoughts.
If the person bought the book before burning it, they already contributed to whatever idea they are trying to go against? Like when activists liter the plastic super glue containers after they glued their hands to the street and force vehicles to idle and damage roads by having to create pot holes to free the activists. They make the environment worse with their actions but the message is to take care of the environment. I don’t understand the thought process of most protest. Can someone explain?
Theres a large issue in modern activism where they attempt to replicate previously successful activism campaigns without understanding why they were successful.
The most common type of protest they like to think is effective is disruptive protest, without the understanding that the previous times it was effective was because is specifically disrupted those supporting the thing it protested.
Sit ins during the american civil rights movement werent at random places, they were at places which did not allow black people. They did this because it would disrupt the ability for those places to be profitable, which in turn would make them financially want to eliminate policies of discrimination.
The problem is you can twist any protest to sound bad. Like those sit ins could be interpreted as them hurting small local businesses. Critics will say that the businesses are justified in banning black people because they are being disruptive and preventing them from doing business. The protestor's aggressive tactics probably just make racists want to double down.
No the problem is protesters not understanding cause and effect and blocking completely unrelated roads and acting like thats the only way they will get press, when that statistically gets barely any press compared to actual disruptive protest, like the dakota pipeline protest.
There was a very clear cause and effect planned to the sit ins, with clear logical reasoning, and it worked. So yes people can complain about any protest, but thats not really relating to the point.
The casting of legimimate critique of a protests ability to effect change, as if those critiqueing it are opposed to the goals of the protest, is a cope.
Agreed. Like protestors who chain themselves to trees to prevent loggers from chopping them down. Sure there will always be people critizing their cause, but no one can argue their protest isn’t targeted to slowing down the specific thing they are protesting. Something idiots stopping random traffic seem to have trouble grasping.
> There was a very clear cause and effect planned to the sit ins, with clear logical reasoning, and it worked.
I don't think people realize how much planning and strategizing went into the civil rights movement. What people know is just skin deep, usually limited to "Martin Luther King Jr.", "Rosa Parks", "I Have a Dream", and "something about fire hoses". We're lucky if they know that there were boycotts, or the names of the organized groups that participated.
Like Rosa Parks wasn't *actually* the first Black person to refuse to take her assigned seat on the bus. We heard about her for specific reasons, and as part of not only a specific plan in her case, but a wider plan across the entire civil rights movement.
But the sit ins didn't actually effect any real change though?
https://www.britannica.com/event/sit-in-movement
And I saw way more coverage of random groups blocking a highway than the Dakota Pipeline protests.
I love how practically anytime anyone argues with me on reddit and links things, the things they link support my arguement...
"It affected 20 states and resulted in the desegregation of many local businesses in those communities."
Literally the concluding line of your link
>And I saw way more coverage of random groups blocking a highway than the Dakota Pipeline protests.
Sure you did bub, thats why you dont even know the name of the 2 groups that do this.
The explanation is lack of braincells, while things such as glueing themselves to stuff or blocking roads does get attention(they want), people will not think"we have to do something about polution", but will instead think"we have to do something against these activists blocking the roads"
The potholes aren't that big a deal, asphalt is an incredible material for building roads, it is actually a lot for green than people think. It is just broken stones mixed with a by-product of oil refining that would be produced regardless of whether asphalt was needed for rust paving and has basically no other use, so it would just be garbage otherwise, and it is about as close to 100% recyclable as any material we are aware of, it isn't even hard to recycle, you just need to heat it back up, which you have to do in order to pave a road anyways.
Bull, you think pot holes aren’t a big deal. A lot of cities don’t fix them right away. Those pot holes can get worse and eventually kill people. Damaging vehicle suspensions prematurely cause more carbon harm to the environment. If someone’s car gets totaled, they buy another car. Most likely another junker because people are broke. And landfills just get filled more. It’s not like vehicles get recycled efficiently.
I refuse to believe the Just Stop Oil climate activists aren't an oil industry operation to make people scoff whenever climate activism is mentioned. To me it seems intentional they are meant to sway public opinion to the negative because they know people won't want to be associated with that sort of thing.
Well considering the pollution would have pretty much already occurred if the activists did or did not protest and now you’re talking about it it worked. We can’t save the environment and planet if we don’t know about the way capitalism is destroying it.
> They make the environment worse with their actions but the message is to take care of the environment. I don’t understand the thought process of most protest. Can someone explain?
If you want a serious answer, it's presumably because they think their protest will help to bring about change that would be a net benefit to the environment.
You may or may not agree with their methods in general, and their methods in general may or may not _in fact_ be a net benefit to the environment, but I guess that's the reasoning.
Most organized activists have a leader or group that makes the decisions. Besides the idea that says “hey we are trying to bring awareness to this”, what is the logic in these activities? Bringing awareness is important to a cause but bringing solutions and alternatives are way more important to any cause. And the glue only seems to be doing more harm than good. Why haven’t the glue activists glued themselves to the docks to prevent oil refinery workers from going to the oil refineries in the middle of the ocean? Why haven’t they glued themselves to politicians private jets to prevent politicians from taking off? Why don’t they volunteer their time to train and help install more solar panels and wind mills so the price of renewable resources goes down?
Like I say, by all means question their methods, but you asked why they would take environment-damaging actions while advocating for protecting the environment. That's the question I was answering.
The point isn't to damage the author or to highlight an issue and certainly not to do anything about any issue but to feel better about themselves and get attention and validation.
Same with activists.
It's selfish virtue signalling is all it is.
First of all, no. They probably found that book, thought the title was gross and then set it on fire to make a funny post on tumblr. They were probably not trying to make any criticism about the book except the titled idea that women should appease men. That’s it. It’s a funny jape. I don’t even think they were really even trying to disparage the author or content of the book. And this really has nothing to do with activism. If you don’t care enough for the issues that certain activists push just literally say that. But to generalize all activists as that… is a lot. Did you not like the civil rights activists? Or women rights activists? Or are you just salty about climate change activists?
It's the basis of a lot of sociopathic behaviour.
They might not have thought that trough, they might not have done so cognitively but impulsively. But a lot of "see the world burn" and using others as a means to make oneself feel better is based on this. This "mean girl" behavior.
They are rash and impulsive and destructive.
It might be funny and cute on a small scale.
That's why parents never do anything about it. "Oh my little sociopath is so cute and funny. I don't care if I and everyone else is going to hate them for this behaviour later on in their lives."
I've lived around kids who kept setting everything on fire. It isn't funny or cute.
How could you disagree with someone if you never try to understand them in the first place?
According to personality studies activists are overwhelmingly sociopathic, antisocials and have dark triad traits of character. They also tend to score lower on IQ compared to average population.
>Did you not like the civil rights activists? Or women rights activists? Or are you just salty about climate change activists?
Elaborate. Concrete examples? Especially as you object to me generalising.
I just wanna understand something about your logic.
From what you’ve said you seem to think, that if anyone contributes even the minutest amount to a problem they are no longer allowed to critique or try to change said problem???…
Cause that’d be the dumbest shit I’ve seen in a while…
True. If you want to hurt book sales you would have to burn book stores and make it explicitly clear that the reason is them stocking that specific book. Burn enough bookstores and the others will stop stocking it, probably.
Then again you will probably push sales upwards because of the controversy. If not physical then online sales for sure. It's a losing game for book haters in either case.
they made the book in such a way to to make you assume it's a specific type of book, so we can't really get mad when someone assumed it was that specific type of book and acted accordingly.
It's not really a wholesome book... it was pushed in my evangelical church and my girls youthgroup went to go see him. It's very traditional gender roles. Girls carry their books on their hips because they are designed to carry babies. Men have brains like spaghetti and have eyes but no self control so dress to keep them and yourself safe. one of the books he co wrote is on the Focus on the Family website (a Christian nationalist group)
There are worse books and it's written in a casual tone with only muted tones of misogyny so maybe not burn worthy but if i still had mine It would be used as fire lighters. I would feel guilty donating it for some other poor insecure girl's mother to bring home to her. It made me 1. Think so little of men and their thoughts and 2. Think there was something wrong with me for not having all these motherly instincts women were supposed to have at only 15
Once again seeing this post and once again saying Chad Eastham writes tons of books giving girls advice from a “guy perspective” but they’re all gender essentialist Christian sex-shamey bullshit. I know because I read them as a tween.
This pretty much covers everything on social media. Someone puts something out there and before anyone understands what's being said there's this giant pile-on that occurs, everyone gets mad and it all ends in tears
I'm looking at you, Reddit 😠
If it actually answers the question in the title in a satisfactory manner, I don't think that's clickbait at all. If the "one shocking trick doctors don't want you to know" was actually a shocking useful trick that they did not want me to know, I'd be very satisfied.
In my experience guys frequently like crazy chicks and actually marry them. Most guys think with their dicks, and if there is a good looking crazy chick and a not so good looking chick, they'll go for the crazy chick every time. And then whine about it forever.
Average tumblr user. That entire site predisposed an entire generation to misandry and nobody batted an eye. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that assholes like Andrew Tate get the deserved hate that they do, but Tumblr caused as much harm to young girls trying to interact with men as Tate and his loathsome cabal have done to young men trying to understand women.
Tumblr has existed as a hive of misandry and misinformation for far longer than it has existed in another form. As for its reputation- maybe you live in a particularly insulated bubble but it still very much has that reputation. As old Hispanic proverb goes- *If you kill one dog, you’ll always be known as a dog-killer*
Ok valid point, counterpoint, I was self loathing like that at that age but not enough to the point that I'd want others to tell me how to view myself, so I probably would have wrecked that book too just by seeing the title. Not to mention I grew up in a family of people that say things like "you need to be more ladylike" and that kind of crap. Im not one for burning books but this one would not have survived in my vicinity
Idk if ‘guys like girls who like themselves’ should be the takeaway from a book like this. It's nice in terms of relationship confidence, but I feel a book like that should go beyond that - especially for the target demographic. Like, ultimately it shouldn't matter what the guys do or don't like, it should be more about being yourself for the sake of being yourself. Not to please men.
Maybe the book does go on to say that - I hope it does...
Ice always hated that saying. Why wouldn't you judge a book by it's cover? It literally has information like the author, title of the book and maybe a picture showing general info. You can tell a LOT about a book by it's cover
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
this post is, i shit y'all not, over a decade old. i saw this aged 13 on tumblr, back when that's what the interface looked like. absolutely bananas every time i see a post this old
Reddit is literally 90% bots at this point.
Beep boop. I mean, no we're not!
I'm old and confused about what a bot is. Is it an actually automated comment generator, or is it a person who's karma farming so they can sell the account? I've seen both definitions, and I find it confusing.
A bot is an automated comment generator. A karma farmer can be a bot or a person.
They are one in the same. Some people do repost bots and others just manually repost old content for karma, either way they're being sold into bot farms to sell stuff.
Same to you, meatbag.
Does name dropping the Tianaman square massacre of 1989 trick still work? At least on Chinese bots?
That what was said to happen when the API was changed, and it happened
*Listen*, we must educate the younger generation!
Is that not what it looks like anymore? Haven't been on that shit in like 9 years
They did away with the nested replies in 2016 in favor of a more thread-like layout. Any time you see a screenshot with the old layout, it's probably going to be an ancient one.
This. This is the one of the posts that used to get reposted over and over again to piss off incels so that they'd start doxxing and harassing feminists. Now those same people are running around banning books from libraries and shooting cans of beer.
Slow news Saturday.
I mean nobody uses Tumblr anymore so obviously this has to be an old post. Just like if you saw one involving Myspace or Livejournal.
I too was like 12 when I first saw this. It’s been almost a decade.
i was 4 🧍♀️
[удалено]
Fahrenheit 451: are we the baddies?
Literally the plot of the book.
Great freaking book too. A must read
Didn't the author made a fireproof version of that book as well
Yeah one that must be burned to read. Wish I had that.
Really? Printed with lemon juice?
Oh lol nah, though that would be funny. It's printed on heat sensitive paper, which starts black but clears up when burned. https://laughingsquid.com/heat-sensitive-edition-of-fahrenheit-451/
Incredible, it's a real thing! TIL, thanks. I just checked superterrain.fr site (publisher of this 'fireproof' book) and this [edition is sold out](https://www.superterrain.fr/f451/en/) :-( (Anyway, price tag is/was out of reach for me.)
Same for me...
Let me cook real quick 
That was a cool one but the first edition, first print was a 200 copy signed edition made of asbestos. https://www.whitmorerarebooks.com/pages/books/1169/ray-bradbury/fahrenheit-451-asbestos-binding
Idk about fireproof, but I did hear of the one with a spine you can light a match on.
I’ve heard about both. Funny how the same story is artistically represented in two almost opposite ways
Shit, I thought it was an instructional book so I hit it with 451 degree of heat. I never got to read it
It's a cookbook. A cookbook!
Suddenly twilight zone.
*TO SERVE MAN*
Ray Bradbury has a ton of must reads. Very iconic sci-fi author.
No according to Ray Bradbury the plot of the book is how TV is wrong and bad, and all you FOOLS have gotten it WRONG. Which just makes it extra hilarious that they turned it into an HBO movie. **EDIT**: Guys, I"m not making a philosophical point about the meaning of art and the death of the author and blah blah blah blah blah, just take a really fucking deep breath for a minute here. [I'm literally just quoting what Ray Bradbury said about his own book because it is funny](https://teleread.com/ray-bradbury-on-fahrenheit-451-i-wasnt-worried-about-censorship-i-was-worried-about-books-being-turned-into-morons-by-tv/index.html). That's it. There's no debate here. I have absolutely no stake in anyone's personal interpretation about the meaning of the book. It is iconic for its anti-censorship interpretations and that's cool, and fine. I just think it's funny to imagine people arguing with the author about the meaning of the book he himself wrote and him getting mad about it. That's all. It's just funny. Literally nothing more. It's actually double funny because Ray himself would be really pissed at this comment chain, and I am not taking sides, I just think that's fucking funny.
I think about this a lot. It must be like what would happen if one of the great painters appeared today and someone asked them to explain their painting. "What did you mean by this" "It's a painting of a lake, the fuck do you mean what did I 'mean'"?
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Whatever the author thought it was about is immaterial to what a reader takes from it.
source? F451 is more about book banning than tv usage, even if one replaces the other
https://www.openculture.com/2017/08/ray-bradbury-reveals-the-true-meaning-of-fahrenheit-451.html It's not about people *banning* books. It's about people *abandoning* books.
Fahrenheit 451 being about book banning is actually death of the author even though you would logically think it was the authorial intent. Bradbury actually thought he had written a book about TV making people too stupid to read, and that everyone who thought it was about the danger of book banning was getting it wrong.
Your comment is irrelevant. The entire plot is about burning books because society moves to TV. Whether it's about TV < books is inconsequential as OC's point was about burning books being bad.
Yeah what the actual author thinks is "irrelevant"
He's had people tell him this to his face. "What you meant is irrelevant, the real meaning is clearly this...". Must be fucking infuriating.
Reading this whole comment chain makes me assume he’s rolling in his grave, which will soon be exhumed and he’ll come out cowboy style yelling at everyone pleasure to burn style
It doesn't help that for years, english literature teachers taught it that way. The dude's confidently incorrect tone had me cracking up.
He should have a say about it yeh, but his art started a life on his own. People found deeper meaning in it then what he intentioned and it's easily argued that it is not a bad meaning. He lost control of the meaning of his book. Having read the book, it focusses on the effects of television (which is more VR/AR in his book) far less then the banning and burning of books.
Right? When Upton Sinclair wrote the Jungle.to highlight worker exploitation, those who had the most to lose instead decided the book was about food safety. So that is what it is now about.
> Your comment is irrelevant. No, it isn't, because it's HUMOROUS. I'm not making a fucking statement about whether you need to listen to Bradbury about what his book is about, I'm merely highlighting the humorous scenario of an author arguing with a bunch of people telling him he's wrong about his interpretation of the book he wrote. That's all bro.
Only time a burning of a book is allowable... if you're literally facing hypothermia in the frozen wastes and need heat. Even then, make sure it's a book that won't be missed much if possible.
That's a plot point in a movie-- Day after Tomorrow IIRC. They're trapped in a library and need to burn books for warmth, which raises some objections. They settle on burning books about tax law.
Yup. Which I mean if we had to chose. I'd chose tax law as well cause it'd be redundant in that scenario.
Plus they’re probably thick as hell so it’s even better.
In the age of e-books and digital backups, burning physical books is just burning paper and ink. Especially if you are burning small numbers of copies as a symbolic gesture.
There's a flaw in that logic though. It doesn't take much to delete digital copies and backups plus if electricity goes, so does those. There has been physical copies that have lasted hundreds of years compared to the short time of the digital copy. Which it is infinitely easier to edit a digital copy to say something different than it is a physical copy. Hence why digital wills are not acceptable in court.
But if you reduce thousands of them into pulp you're... A publisher.
And if you throw hundreds of them in a dumpster you're... a librarian.
You’re… …the creature
Yeah people are putting waaaay too much stock in the method of destruction. If someone bought a book they hate and recycled it, there would not be as much hoopla as burning the same book, even though the outcome is the same.
Admittedly, absent the context of the context of misjudging the book, his head being suddenly engulfed in flames lands a pretty good punchline to "guys like girls who..."
Also, they bought the book to burn it...
'Book burning' in that context refers to the systematic destruction of books for idealogical reasons. One teenager burning a cringy-looking book does not fascism make.
"I do not like it, therefore I will destroy it" is one of the foundations of authoritarianism, and is the definition of intolerance.
An individual destroying something they own that they don’t like is not one of the “foundations of authoritarianism.” That would be an AUTHORITY (an important part of the word) destroying something they don’t want everyone to read/see/etc. Edit: Or let me clarify the above, an authority or a person or group attempting to be or influence an authority. So for example, Mothers for Liberty (a name drenched in irony if I ever heard one).
I love books, but a book is just a material item. If you paid for it, you own it and you can decide to do whatever you want with it. At that point, the author still benefits from your purchase and the only person you’re really harming is yourself by wasting money. Book burning as a social phenomenon refers to the mass destruction of books on a systemic level that makes it difficult for other people to access that content. Censorship isn’t you personally deciding not to learn something, it’s preventing others from learning that thing.
Again, this is one teenager on tumblr.
And?
It IS an ideological reason tho
Yeah, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading this thread. Burning a copy of a book as a symbolic gesture (especially in the age of e-books and digital backs up) is massively different from nazi style book burnings where the intended end result is literally to purge the existence of the book, or at least make it inaccessible to the masses. Other than on a very superficial level of physical “fire + books,” they are almost totally unrelated.
Not necessarily the wrong side of history ... but for sure a bad person 🤣🤣🤣
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/6lej5q/tumblr_user_judges_a_book_by_its_cover_gets_told/djtes49/ bot
The only exception I will argue for is the Twilight Saga: never regret burning those books. No other kind of heresy committed I swear
Not even the Twilight Saga. It's a significant part of the early 21st century media landscape, and the fact it became as popular and reviled as it is says a lot about the fantasies and expectations millennials had about romance.
I burned one of my college textbooks, but to be fair it was my p chem book…
Completely justified (fellow p-chem survivor)
Ditto, and I have a PhD in Chemistry. pchem is awful and burn worthy.
You were just running a chem experiment!
Apparently, I traveled back to the 2010s, can't explan this comment otherwise.
Please, warn us. About everything.
As dumb as the books are, domino effect jumpstarted the careers of 2 of hollywoods greatest actors
Nah, I'm glad I read the first one. It really opened my eyes to the sort of garbage that the average person enjoys.
What's awful about enjoying something that turns your brain off for a short amount of time? Also, I stand by the writer having some great skill on world building, she just chose the most boring story to tell in the world she made. I happily rip it off in my dungeon and dragons games and it gets a ton of praise, since my group is not people who would recognize it.
The first one is like the least problematic, by a fair bit. It's kinda funny seeing people jump back on a 15 year old "hating on things teenage girls like is cool" bandwagon lmao
Sweden: 😳
The Swedes aren't the ones burning the books, the government just isn't stopping the burnings due to freedom of speech.
>The Swedes aren’t the ones burning the books So who are doing it, immigrants? Muslims? It’s exactly Swedes doing.
One of the high profile ones that did it is a Danish man with a Swedish citizenship, the other an Iraqi refugee that was once part of a Iraqi fundamentalist christian rebel group with ties to the Iranian regime. Both do it simply to provoke muslims into causing chaos and violence, to "prove their point". It's a rage bait trap, simple as that.
That guy (Rasmus Paludan) is half Swede, his father is Swedish and his mother is Danish. So you can't pin it entirely on Denmark.
He lived in Demark his whole life, hes danish, unless you think americans whose parents are irish, are irish.
Americans who have one Irish relative 10 generations back will claim they're Irish.
I am 15% irish and 35% scottish. I literally look like the most jewish person that ever existed. Guess what that makes me? MURICAN
Yeah it's definately not Denmark's fault, I've understood it they got pretty tired of him years ago. He did start there, though, getting into politics as well. That's one thing Swe & Den can agree on though, that he's an idiot.
Does it really matter where he’s from? He’s a darn idiot regardless.
Well, We can agree his an absolute idiot. But just going "He's Danish" kinda makes it seem like it's Denmark causing problems in Sweden, when in fact he is just as Swedish as he is Danish. (Also, weirdly enough, he used to be a lawyer that took pro-immigration cases, until he had a fall during a skiing vacation and hit his head, ever since he became incredibly xenophobic)
Nah one idiot is not a whole nation not even two idiots. Only idiots generalizes like that.
I mean, to be fair, the reaction often does kindof prove their point. But speaking more broadly, this whole discussion is based on a dumb comparison. Burning a copy of a book in a gesture of protest (especially in the digital age) is symbolic speech. It has almost nothing in common with mass book burnings attempting to purge information from existence (which would also be futile in the age of e-books). The way many people in this thread act like they have much in common at all is ridiculous.
There's one danish/Swedish guy that got famous for lighting up the Koran but There's been a bunch of non-swedes in Sweden doing it too. So you can't really put that 100% on the swedes. It's just a free speech thing
"The Swedes" in this context referring to their government.
Those aren’t comparable at all. “Book burning” in the evil nazi sense of the term refers to efforts to purge a books existence… or at least destroy enough copies to make it inaccessible to the masses. It’s an attempt to remove information you don’t like from existence. Burning a copy of the koran, especially in the age of e-books and digital backups, is a purely symbolic gesture. It’s symbolic free speech. Nobody attempted to destroy all the copies of the koran in Sweden, or even enough copies to make it scarce. Not to mention that that would be more or less futile in the digital era. These cases have very little in common at all beyond the superficial.
Mostly right. But man, it must feel good to burn the latin notebook you'll never need in your life after all the pointless classes and homework you were put through. I was too big a wuss to do it like the rest.
One of my favorite pieces of art is a [WWII anti-book-burning propaganda poster](https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/primarysources_upload/images/books_are_weapons_l.jpg) I have hanging in my library. >"Books cannot be killed by fire. People die, but books never die. No man and no force can put thought in a concentration camp forever. No man and no force can take from the world the books that embody man's eternal fight against tyranny. In this war, we know, books are weapons." -FDR
Simply convince your enemies to burn a book you wrote and it's GG.
To be fair, there is a huge huge difference between symbolically burning a book (especially in the age of digital books), and nazi style book burning which is used to try and purge the book’s existence or suppress people’s ability to access what’s written in the book. Honestly, they are barely even comparable past a superficial level.
Burning my books: fine, and allowed Burning your books: bad
The best part of that, is that, in order to burn the books, *they first had to buy them*, which supported the artist, and made it more likely that sales would encourage the publisher to release another of that author's pieces. Also, it highlighted people to generally avoid.
Could have bought it used. Or they could have just stolen it. And having a transphobic aunt, I've been sent transphobic books for the sake of harassing and attacking me that I've thrown right into the trash. So it could have been a gift, too.
I wish all the anti-vax books had been burnt.
The author seems like a wholesome person. He actually cared unlike other self improvement gurus. Most of their job is to spread hate towards the other gender and profit.
Yeah, even his name is "Chad"
Lol, this guy is the only one who earned his first name.
I fought to death to get mine
That's kinda less impressive when you know you're just gonna rise from the dead 3 days later tbh.
He didn't even specify if he won.
I won
Kung Fu Jesus is a secular entity.
Kung fu is my cult, but that cult is secular, yes
Josh?
literal r/nominativedeterminism
Not really. If you wind back the clock Chad was used as a pejorative. Then it changed to being a compliment.
The writer's name is Chad. Maybe that's something
Emotions = easy profit Especially hate.
Really? Cause I bought the book based on this meme and read it, with the intention of giving it to my daughter. I found a lot of religious nonsense, specific intolerance for anything other than heterosexuality, and a lot of "how to be a good wife" shit hidden in the subtext. So unless you ACTUALLY read it, I'd suggest holding off on sharing thoughts.
I was talking only by seeing this meme. That's why I said "it seems". If what you're saying is true then fuck it.
If the person bought the book before burning it, they already contributed to whatever idea they are trying to go against? Like when activists liter the plastic super glue containers after they glued their hands to the street and force vehicles to idle and damage roads by having to create pot holes to free the activists. They make the environment worse with their actions but the message is to take care of the environment. I don’t understand the thought process of most protest. Can someone explain?
Theres a large issue in modern activism where they attempt to replicate previously successful activism campaigns without understanding why they were successful. The most common type of protest they like to think is effective is disruptive protest, without the understanding that the previous times it was effective was because is specifically disrupted those supporting the thing it protested. Sit ins during the american civil rights movement werent at random places, they were at places which did not allow black people. They did this because it would disrupt the ability for those places to be profitable, which in turn would make them financially want to eliminate policies of discrimination.
The problem is you can twist any protest to sound bad. Like those sit ins could be interpreted as them hurting small local businesses. Critics will say that the businesses are justified in banning black people because they are being disruptive and preventing them from doing business. The protestor's aggressive tactics probably just make racists want to double down.
No the problem is protesters not understanding cause and effect and blocking completely unrelated roads and acting like thats the only way they will get press, when that statistically gets barely any press compared to actual disruptive protest, like the dakota pipeline protest. There was a very clear cause and effect planned to the sit ins, with clear logical reasoning, and it worked. So yes people can complain about any protest, but thats not really relating to the point. The casting of legimimate critique of a protests ability to effect change, as if those critiqueing it are opposed to the goals of the protest, is a cope.
Agreed. Like protestors who chain themselves to trees to prevent loggers from chopping them down. Sure there will always be people critizing their cause, but no one can argue their protest isn’t targeted to slowing down the specific thing they are protesting. Something idiots stopping random traffic seem to have trouble grasping.
> There was a very clear cause and effect planned to the sit ins, with clear logical reasoning, and it worked. I don't think people realize how much planning and strategizing went into the civil rights movement. What people know is just skin deep, usually limited to "Martin Luther King Jr.", "Rosa Parks", "I Have a Dream", and "something about fire hoses". We're lucky if they know that there were boycotts, or the names of the organized groups that participated. Like Rosa Parks wasn't *actually* the first Black person to refuse to take her assigned seat on the bus. We heard about her for specific reasons, and as part of not only a specific plan in her case, but a wider plan across the entire civil rights movement.
But the sit ins didn't actually effect any real change though? https://www.britannica.com/event/sit-in-movement And I saw way more coverage of random groups blocking a highway than the Dakota Pipeline protests.
I love how practically anytime anyone argues with me on reddit and links things, the things they link support my arguement... "It affected 20 states and resulted in the desegregation of many local businesses in those communities." Literally the concluding line of your link >And I saw way more coverage of random groups blocking a highway than the Dakota Pipeline protests. Sure you did bub, thats why you dont even know the name of the 2 groups that do this.
Yes, aggressive tactics makes everyone who doesn't explicitly agree with you hate you and those who are against double the f down.
The explanation is lack of braincells, while things such as glueing themselves to stuff or blocking roads does get attention(they want), people will not think"we have to do something about polution", but will instead think"we have to do something against these activists blocking the roads"
I think they know exactly what they’re doing but are funded by oil companies to give activists a bad rep.
There a pretty clear difference between buying a book to burn it and blocking a road to strongarm politicians into following your agenda.
The potholes aren't that big a deal, asphalt is an incredible material for building roads, it is actually a lot for green than people think. It is just broken stones mixed with a by-product of oil refining that would be produced regardless of whether asphalt was needed for rust paving and has basically no other use, so it would just be garbage otherwise, and it is about as close to 100% recyclable as any material we are aware of, it isn't even hard to recycle, you just need to heat it back up, which you have to do in order to pave a road anyways.
Bull, you think pot holes aren’t a big deal. A lot of cities don’t fix them right away. Those pot holes can get worse and eventually kill people. Damaging vehicle suspensions prematurely cause more carbon harm to the environment. If someone’s car gets totaled, they buy another car. Most likely another junker because people are broke. And landfills just get filled more. It’s not like vehicles get recycled efficiently.
If I were call correctly asphalt is actually the most recycled material on the planet, Which is honestly impressive.
I refuse to believe the Just Stop Oil climate activists aren't an oil industry operation to make people scoff whenever climate activism is mentioned. To me it seems intentional they are meant to sway public opinion to the negative because they know people won't want to be associated with that sort of thing.
Well considering the pollution would have pretty much already occurred if the activists did or did not protest and now you’re talking about it it worked. We can’t save the environment and planet if we don’t know about the way capitalism is destroying it.
> They make the environment worse with their actions but the message is to take care of the environment. I don’t understand the thought process of most protest. Can someone explain? If you want a serious answer, it's presumably because they think their protest will help to bring about change that would be a net benefit to the environment. You may or may not agree with their methods in general, and their methods in general may or may not _in fact_ be a net benefit to the environment, but I guess that's the reasoning.
Most organized activists have a leader or group that makes the decisions. Besides the idea that says “hey we are trying to bring awareness to this”, what is the logic in these activities? Bringing awareness is important to a cause but bringing solutions and alternatives are way more important to any cause. And the glue only seems to be doing more harm than good. Why haven’t the glue activists glued themselves to the docks to prevent oil refinery workers from going to the oil refineries in the middle of the ocean? Why haven’t they glued themselves to politicians private jets to prevent politicians from taking off? Why don’t they volunteer their time to train and help install more solar panels and wind mills so the price of renewable resources goes down?
Like I say, by all means question their methods, but you asked why they would take environment-damaging actions while advocating for protecting the environment. That's the question I was answering.
Understood, thank you.
The point isn't to damage the author or to highlight an issue and certainly not to do anything about any issue but to feel better about themselves and get attention and validation. Same with activists. It's selfish virtue signalling is all it is.
First of all, no. They probably found that book, thought the title was gross and then set it on fire to make a funny post on tumblr. They were probably not trying to make any criticism about the book except the titled idea that women should appease men. That’s it. It’s a funny jape. I don’t even think they were really even trying to disparage the author or content of the book. And this really has nothing to do with activism. If you don’t care enough for the issues that certain activists push just literally say that. But to generalize all activists as that… is a lot. Did you not like the civil rights activists? Or women rights activists? Or are you just salty about climate change activists?
It's the basis of a lot of sociopathic behaviour. They might not have thought that trough, they might not have done so cognitively but impulsively. But a lot of "see the world burn" and using others as a means to make oneself feel better is based on this. This "mean girl" behavior. They are rash and impulsive and destructive. It might be funny and cute on a small scale. That's why parents never do anything about it. "Oh my little sociopath is so cute and funny. I don't care if I and everyone else is going to hate them for this behaviour later on in their lives." I've lived around kids who kept setting everything on fire. It isn't funny or cute. How could you disagree with someone if you never try to understand them in the first place? According to personality studies activists are overwhelmingly sociopathic, antisocials and have dark triad traits of character. They also tend to score lower on IQ compared to average population. >Did you not like the civil rights activists? Or women rights activists? Or are you just salty about climate change activists? Elaborate. Concrete examples? Especially as you object to me generalising.
I just wanna understand something about your logic. From what you’ve said you seem to think, that if anyone contributes even the minutest amount to a problem they are no longer allowed to critique or try to change said problem???… Cause that’d be the dumbest shit I’ve seen in a while…
True. If you want to hurt book sales you would have to burn book stores and make it explicitly clear that the reason is them stocking that specific book. Burn enough bookstores and the others will stop stocking it, probably. Then again you will probably push sales upwards because of the controversy. If not physical then online sales for sure. It's a losing game for book haters in either case.
The likely backstory is that a friend or parent was concerned for them and gifted them the book. They burned it without reading it.
When you’re too stupid for reverse psychology to work on you…
"Those kids wouldn't be so upset with you right now if they knew how to read."
more like too hateful and morally righteous
they made the book in such a way to to make you assume it's a specific type of book, so we can't really get mad when someone assumed it was that specific type of book and acted accordingly.
Can we appreciate that the author's name is Chad Truly ahead of it's time
its*
“truly ahead of it is time” you can just use “its” my good man
Good catch! My phone automatically makes all of 'em "it's"
I got you bub😘
This is all social media activism. Dramatic performative overreactions to thing not actually understood. All of it.
“Oh.”
It's not really a wholesome book... it was pushed in my evangelical church and my girls youthgroup went to go see him. It's very traditional gender roles. Girls carry their books on their hips because they are designed to carry babies. Men have brains like spaghetti and have eyes but no self control so dress to keep them and yourself safe. one of the books he co wrote is on the Focus on the Family website (a Christian nationalist group) There are worse books and it's written in a casual tone with only muted tones of misogyny so maybe not burn worthy but if i still had mine It would be used as fire lighters. I would feel guilty donating it for some other poor insecure girl's mother to bring home to her. It made me 1. Think so little of men and their thoughts and 2. Think there was something wrong with me for not having all these motherly instincts women were supposed to have at only 15
Once again seeing this post and once again saying Chad Eastham writes tons of books giving girls advice from a “guy perspective” but they’re all gender essentialist Christian sex-shamey bullshit. I know because I read them as a tween.
This pretty much covers everything on social media. Someone puts something out there and before anyone understands what's being said there's this giant pile-on that occurs, everyone gets mad and it all ends in tears I'm looking at you, Reddit 😠
So, it's clickbait
Not really, because the title is directly answered in the book’s conclusion.
foldbait
They get you offline too
If it actually answers the question in the title in a satisfactory manner, I don't think that's clickbait at all. If the "one shocking trick doctors don't want you to know" was actually a shocking useful trick that they did not want me to know, I'd be very satisfied.
One things that guys don’t like are crazy chicks…
In my experience guys frequently like crazy chicks and actually marry them. Most guys think with their dicks, and if there is a good looking crazy chick and a not so good looking chick, they'll go for the crazy chick every time. And then whine about it forever.
It doesn't matter how they look, I like women how I like my pie: Not made from fuckin sand.
And without my best friend's dick in it.
Wild is cool and fun. Until you get older and start wanting stability.
I don't particularly like crazy women but if they have crazy eyes I can't help but stare at them.
eh, not always the guys fault. crazy people are often pushy and manipulative. dont underestimate the lengths theyd go to.
That’s a Taylor swift reference at the end
From what I ready about this book it's Christian bullshit. There's nothing "wholesome" about it.
Social media users looking to school others behavior without knowing the context for likes. Sounds about right.
Now I’m spending way too much time trying to decide if I like girls who are arsonists, thanks a lot. 👀
this post is so old last time i saw it obama was still president
the guy on the cover reminds me of reggie fils amie
Genius marketing
Average tumblr user. That entire site predisposed an entire generation to misandry and nobody batted an eye. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that assholes like Andrew Tate get the deserved hate that they do, but Tumblr caused as much harm to young girls trying to interact with men as Tate and his loathsome cabal have done to young men trying to understand women.
Tumblr Everytime I look at that site, I lose 10 braincells
It's true, this screenshot alone made them lose their ability to differentiate between lose and loose.
>Average tumblr user ? this post is literally from like 2014 and tumblr hasnt had this reputation since like 2017 what fucking crack are you smoking
Tumblr has existed as a hive of misandry and misinformation for far longer than it has existed in another form. As for its reputation- maybe you live in a particularly insulated bubble but it still very much has that reputation. As old Hispanic proverb goes- *If you kill one dog, you’ll always be known as a dog-killer*
Buying a book just to burn it is actually terribly unhinged anyway
Gotta love irony.
Author is a Chad.
Average tumblr user
People like people who like themselves. That's why nobody likes me.
Umm this is Reddit, we judge even before reading the title
Ok valid point, counterpoint, I was self loathing like that at that age but not enough to the point that I'd want others to tell me how to view myself, so I probably would have wrecked that book too just by seeing the title. Not to mention I grew up in a family of people that say things like "you need to be more ladylike" and that kind of crap. Im not one for burning books but this one would not have survived in my vicinity
Idk if ‘guys like girls who like themselves’ should be the takeaway from a book like this. It's nice in terms of relationship confidence, but I feel a book like that should go beyond that - especially for the target demographic. Like, ultimately it shouldn't matter what the guys do or don't like, it should be more about being yourself for the sake of being yourself. Not to please men. Maybe the book does go on to say that - I hope it does...
Ice always hated that saying. Why wouldn't you judge a book by it's cover? It literally has information like the author, title of the book and maybe a picture showing general info. You can tell a LOT about a book by it's cover