I see your true colours shining through

Well.
The first one is in color, the second one isn't.
The second is a better shot because it's further back and gives context to what's happening. The first one is a fire...? and maybe people? There's no context as to what's happening so...

There's 2 differences for you right there.

I realized after I posted this and it featured that I forgot to put some context to it. It’s antifa burning mega hats that they stolen off of people’s head.

Thank you. I was going to ask what they were burning in the first. Both are symbolic destruction of speech.

Hell, the lefties have already been burning actual books as it is, including one by Dr. Christina Hoff-Summers, who runs a video series called "The Factual Feminist".

This just in...

Well, it's expressing your freedom of speech by silencing others, even if just in a symbolic sense. It's also denying others their freedom to choose what to read.

The difference is, as you pointed out, it's not being done by the /official/ government, so it's not covered by the first amendment, and many seem to think that's fine. But more and more, the western world is being run by "unofficial" governing by SJW movements like feminism.

And don't you think it's quite suspicious that feminists are burning books written BY a feminist?

How is burning a hat, nikes or a quaran silencing someone? It is just destroying material things or possibly text that is widely available, not expunging all available copies of said text. Expunging all copies would be silencing, destroying one is not.

Not denyong others the freedom to read you shit. No one can claim the right to read someone elses book, that is theft or "borrowing without permission" or at best borrowing. It is your right to do with your property as you please.

Secret governance by SJW movement lol get out of here xD

Pleople can burn their property, that is none of my business.

First off, you apparently don't understand the word "symbolic". Perhaps you should look it up.

Secondly, are you yet another of those lefties that dishonestly twists words to fit what YOU want to hear, instead of what was actually said.

If you buy up all the copies of a book from a bookstore, or take all the copies off the library's shelves, specifically in order to burn them, you are doing it to /intentionally/ deny others the opportunity to buy/borrow and read that book, symbolically silencing the author. (symbolically, because obviously those other people could go to another book store).

Also, I love the blatant hypocrisy in your post. You deny one group the right to their personal property (ie maga hats that are ripped off people's head and thrown in a fire), while defending the right of another group to keep their own property and do with it as they see fit.

Firstly, where the f**k did you find hypocrisy in my post? Are blind or can you just not read? Roflmao.

Secondly: It is an extreme symbolic gesture, to show dissent or disagreement. Not neccesarily that they should be silenced.If you made a big deal of it being to silence it could be interpreted as a "symbolic" gesture to "silence" someone. However it is not accomplishing it's goal, and you look the fool if you do this.

I made a typo in my last statement which might have made it sound aggressive: "Not denyong others the freedom to read you shit." it's supposed to be "read your shit". It was not an insult directed at you.

Taking them from the library would be theft, and illegal, and should be punished. Buying them all from a bookstore is called stupidity.... Funding your enemy is a great successful strategy, truly tremendous... If you are attempting to buy "all" of them, that could maybe in a certain context be perceived as "silencing", however it accomplishes nothing of the sort and you end up looking like a clueless potato, now with less money.

The only way it could be interpreted as silencing in my eyes is if you actually silenced it. It just shows strong dissent and disagreement, and snowflakes who think otherwise might benefit from cooling down. Ridiculing the ones who attempt to burn text they disagree with is a great way to retort, but getting all serious is just sad.

Actually that is a good point. And a good distinction between the two images in the original meme.

{{pssssst, tely that to the OP and the rest of the Trumpers}}

tell*

Ha ha

stole the color photography joke from me :(

They seem to be opposites in a way...

One is burning a clothing accessory with a vague nationalistic slogan written on it (ironically possibly made in China) designed by an organization headed by someone who seems to have contempt for truth, facts, intelligence agencies, journalists, scientists, records, and knowledge in general.

The other is burning books.. used to obtain knowledge.

I still owe you (and others) replies from recent days...

It isn't.

I agree

It's no different, accept the Nazi didn't call the Jews Nazis to cover up their lunacy

No, they called them subhuman.

Yes :(

i could get more out of a book than some hats bruh

you could argue that theyre both "removing speech" i guess, it's not like you can support trump without buying all his merch, but the second one is removing actual knowledge and substance from the world forever, the industry can make more maga hats it literally doesnt matter

I was thinking of it more as Nazis are burning books and antifa is burning hats stolen off the heads of people, No question for debate just eradication.

Actually no, they are different, if hats were stolen, then that is illegal and they should be prosecuted.