this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
208 points (96.0% liked)
Not The Onion
17464 readers
953 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They also weren't destroying rare books. They were buying in-print books from major retailers, which means that while yes, that is environmentally wasteful, it's not actually destroying books in the classical destruction of knowledge sense since the manufacturer will just print another one if there's demand for it.
This as well. Growing up in a house of book lovers, myself included, destroying a book was akin to kicking a puppy. Realistically though, they're ultimately consumables. They're meant to be bought, used, and replaced as needed. With luck the destruction included recycling as much as possible, seeing as it's mainly paper.
Precisely, there's a reason that these days, books made for libraries are made to an entirely different standard than books sold at your local book store.
Yeah, you have millions of old books that nobody wants not even collectors. It's not just popular literature.