ellusiveuser

ellusiveuser t1_j7v91yq wrote

I don't think you're Hitler for not agreeing with me, I just think you're incapable of thinking critically. The important thing to focus on here is not the means, but the end. However you arrive at the end it doesn't change the outcome, despite the means. Yes, if the decision by a governing body is to physically remove tangible literature from a designated repository of literature, directly as a result from an overly bloated and mismanaged administration that is trying to navigate funding The outcome. Is. The. Same. Call it a tyranny of oppression or a tyranny of incompetence, the governing force is creating a reality that can only rationally be perceived as devolving the spectrum of intelligence so far from a semblance of acceptable reality that it's almost worse if it is a result of incompetence and not as a calculated attempt at overthrowing a freethinking body politic. At least that level of evil is comprehensible.

1

ellusiveuser t1_j7uqb0y wrote

The end result of depriving access to literature is tyranny whether defacto by budgetary mismanagement, or de jure by writ of autocratic decree. The result is still the same and should be opposed as such. The fact that you're defending the circumstances due to financial incompetence doesn't change the absolutely incalculably inexcusable outcome, which was made evident in the novel.

2