Missouri Republican Candidate Burns Public Library Books with Flamethrower (not that one, another one, and for real this time)

essentialsaltes · Feb 7, 2024

One Missouri GOP candidate has incorporated book burning into her campaign. Valentina Gomez, who is running for secretary of state, posted a video of herself burning public library books with a flamethrower.

A library catalog label can be seen attached to at least one of the burning books.

Last year, you may recall that candidate for governor Bill Eigel used a flamethrower on empty boxes to demonstrate his position on woke books and the liberal agenda. Metaphorically speaking.

PloverWing · Feb 7, 2024

Well, that seems like a good use of public funds.

Fantine · Feb 7, 2024

St. Louis County--adjacent to St. Charles County--had the finest library system I'd ever seen when I lived there, a real community asset at the forefront of new technology. I am sure St. Charles' system is the same. I even attended a wonderful writers group there.
I hope the community rises up against this depraved promoter of ignorance who would attack these community treasures.

rambot · Feb 7, 2024

I remember when everyone viewed book burning as a full frontal attack on free speech.

Turns out that free speech Republicans don't like, should ALSO be banned.

Remember the thread where "X number of liberals think there should be limits on free speech", I think the most telling thing about this is as follows:

Liberals self reflect and are FULLY aware of the idea that they think there should be limits.

Conservatives are not as strong at reflecting (sorry, it's just what I see demonstrated, in broad terms, regularly). They do not believe in free speech when it is something they disagree with but (those that don't reflect well) will INSIST that they DO believe in free speech but there is a FUNDAMENTAL problem with the speech that they have a problem with that means it should NOT be free.

so that there should be limits on free speech. Not all Conservatives think this of course. Just the type of folks who think drag shows should be banned and gr3 kids shouldn't read books about gay penguins.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 7, 2024

rambot said:
I remember when everyone viewed book burning as a full frontal attack on free speech.

Turns out that free speech Republicans don't like, should ALSO be banned.

Remember the thread where "X number of liberals think there should be limits on free speech", I think the most telling thing about this is as follows:

Liberals self reflect and are FULLY aware of the idea that they think there should be limits.

Conservatives are not as strong at reflecting (sorry, it's just what I see demonstrated, in broad terms, regularly). They do not believe in free speech when it is something they disagree with but (those that don't reflect well) will INSIST that they DO believe in free speech but there is a FUNDAMENTAL problem with the speech that they have a problem with that means it should NOT be free.

so that there should be limits on free speech. Not all Conservatives think this of course. Just the type of folks who think drag shows should be banned and gr3 kids shouldn't read books about gay penguins.

What you lay out is the reason why I (despite them having no chance of winning in my lifetime) like the Libertarian party.

They seem to understand the concepts of free speech and free expression (and the original intent) better than the two major parties.

To me, I see "people who complain about a book with a gay character in a library" and the "how dare you misgender..." lot as being of the same ilk.

While I would say that your assessment of conservatives (in general...obviously there's exceptions) is accurate, I'd suggest you're going a little light on the liberals. The fact that someone has the capacity to be self-reflecting is of little to no consequence to the validity of their ideas.

A person who says "I think drug XYZ should be banned and people who use it should go to prison, but at least I'm willing to admit I have anti-drug bias" isn't inherently better/worse that a person who falsely calls themselves pro-legalization, but then creates a bunch of carve-outs to explain why "Drug A is okay, but Drug B is bad"

It all amounts to the same thing... Which is, people picking and choosing whether or not freedom makes sense based on their own personal comfort level.

rambot · Feb 7, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
What you lay out is the reason why I (despite them having no chance of winning in my lifetime) like the Libertarian party.

They seem to understand the concepts of free speech and free expression (and the original intent) better than the two major parties.

To me, I see "people who complain about a book with a gay character in a library" and the "how dare you misgender..." lot as being of the same ilk.

To an extent I agree.

ThatRobGuy said:
While I would say that your assessment of conservatives (in general...obviously there's exceptions) is accurate, I'd suggest you're going a little light on the liberals. The fact that someone has the capacity to be self-reflecting is of little to no consequence to the validity of their ideas.

Validity? I dunno. I do think there is at least a correlation between being self reflective and having stronger ideas, and I do think generally there is a causality.

If you don't reflect on your idea, how can you find its faults and improve on it?

ThatRobGuy said:
A person who says "I think drug XYZ should be banned and people who use it should go to prison, but at least I'm willing to admit I have anti-drug bias" isn't inherently better/worse that a person who falsely calls themselves pro-legalization, but then creates a bunch of carve-outs to explain why "Drug A is okay, but Drug B is bad".

I'm not gonna lie. This seems like a weeeeeeeeird example since different t drugs ABSOLUTELY have different inherent dangers

ThatRobGuy said:
It all amounts to the same thing... Which is, people picking and choosing whether or not freedom makes sense based on their own personal comfort level.

Bur then accepting the totality of their opinions instead of trying to segment them.

Tuur · Feb 7, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
A library catalog label can be seen attached to at least one of the burning books.

Um...I have a number of books in my personal library that I purchased when libraries were making room on their shelves and took the opportunity to do a little fundraising. Right now I'm looking at the spine of my first, The Friendly Stars, which dates from 1907 and was a discard from the school library.

If the book in the fire was the current property of a library, then she could be charged with the destruction of public property. Since she's a Republican, she likely couldn't get away with calling it a mostly peaceful protest.

essentialsaltes · Feb 7, 2024

Tuur said:
Um...I have a number of books in my personal library that I purchased when libraries were making room on their shelves and took the opportunity to do a little fundraising.

I have some ex libris books myself, but the candidate in question did not (so far as I know) make any qualifying statements in declaring her destruction of library books.

Tuur · Feb 8, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
I have some ex libris books myself, but the candidate in question did not (so far as I know) make any qualifying statements in declaring her destruction of library books.

Why would she? It's basically a commercial. LBJ didn't have a qualifier "This is not an actual nuclear war" for his "Daisy" commercial. Did she claim the heisted the books from a public library? If not, then why is that the first assumption and not that she did like we did?

The IbanezerScrooge · Feb 8, 2024

Tuur said:
Why would she? It's basically a commercial. LBJ didn't have a qualifier "This is not an actual nuclear war" for his "Daisy" commercial. Did she claim the heisted the books from a public library? If not, then why is that the first assumption and not that she did like we did?

I think the point is that your speculation about the books not being from the current library (and therefore her illegal destruction of county property) is no more valid than the converse that she actually went to the library, checked these books out and burned them.

Either way, burning books, regardless of where they are from has pretty much always been frowned upon by most people and portends a pretty sinister future if this candidate is voted in, IMO.

durangodawood · Feb 8, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
....A person who says "I think drug XYZ should be banned and people who use it should go to prison, but at least I'm willing to admit I have anti-drug bias" isn't inherently better/worse that a person who falsely calls themselves pro-legalization, but then creates a bunch of carve-outs to explain why "Drug A is okay, but Drug B is bad".....

To me it seems really dumb to not recognize that different drugs have different consequences for the individual and society.

Whats inherently better or more honest about being pro legalization for all of them rather than just some of them?

essentialsaltes · Feb 8, 2024

Tuur said:
Did she claim the heisted the books from a public library?

"In her video, Gomez stated she was burning “grooming” books from a Missouri public library"

ThatRobGuy · Feb 8, 2024

durangodawood said:
To me it seems really dumb to not recognize that different drugs have different consequences for the individual and society.

Whats inherently better or more honest about being pro legalization for all of them rather than just some of them?

It depends on whether or not they're purporting to be "the party of legalization"

When people start saying "we're the party of XYZ...", that implies more of a "absolutist" position within the contemporary usage of that expression.

Brihaha · Feb 8, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
"In her video, Gomez stated she was burning “grooming” books from a Missouri public library"

But they are probably all those Don Jr books the Republican National Committee spent $300,000 to purchase. Storage fees were killing the budget

.

durangodawood · Feb 8, 2024

ThatRobGuy said:
It depends on whether or not they're purporting to be "the party of legalization"

When people start saying "we're the party of XYZ...", that implies more of a "absolutist" position within the contemporary usage of that expression.

More =/= all.

"Party of XYZ" typically indicates a direction more than an end goal of 100%. Its where they think the center should be moved to. On most issues absolutist positions are stupid.

ThatRobGuy · Feb 8, 2024

rambot said:
I'm not gonna lie. This seems like a weeeeeeeeird example since different t drugs ABSOLUTELY have different inherent dangers

Perhaps the drug analogy wasn't a good one.

...best I could come up with late in the evening lol.

But my general point was that a person who wishes to put restrictions on other people (but are self aware in doing so) aren't inherently any better, with regards how it impacts others, than people who want to blindly do it -- that is, if there's no good reason for doing it in the first place.

Perhaps this one is better:
If Joe Smith says "I don't want you to be allowed to have whiskey, but I guess beer is okay, but I at least I'm self aware enough to admit that I'm not an pro-alcohol absolutist"

And Dan Jones says "I don't want you to have whiskey, but we still want to see ourselves as the party of alcohol rights absolutism because we're okay with beer, and I see zero irony in this"

It doesn't matter that Dan Jones's statement is more ridiculous and ironic, the end result is me not being allowed to get any Crown Royal this weekend.

durangodawood · Feb 8, 2024

Oh and "Liberal Tears".

First off, its a cliche and unoriginal to the point that you should be embarrassed to say it.

But mostly, it indicates you are a plain old mean person in a way that should be unbecoming of anyone in public office. An actual conservative would know that kind of language and intent gets us nowhere, or worse than nowhere.

Tuur · Feb 8, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
"In her video, Gomez stated she was burning “grooming” books from a Missouri public library"

You are right. I found that out later. So if she did, why are there no charges for destruction of public property? Either she used books obtained like our ex libris books, or she destroyed public property, or she lied. A politician who lies is right up there with dogs that mark fire hydrants: it's what they do. That she lied is likely, particularly if she's not charged with destruction of public property.

Tuur · Feb 8, 2024

durangodawood said:
An actual conservative would know that kind of language and intent gets us nowhere, or worse than nowhere.

Those days no longer exist in American politics, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican.

Tuur · Feb 8, 2024

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Either way, burning books, regardless of where they are from has pretty much always been frowned upon by most people and portends a pretty sinister future if this candidate is voted in, IMO.

Whether a book is burned or suppressed for "misinformation," the result is the same.

Missouri Republican Candidate Burns Public Library Books with Flamethrower (not that one, another one, and for real this time)

Fact-Based Lifeform

Episcopalian

Dona Quixote

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

re Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads