I am noticing a rise in Holocaust denial with the rising anti-Zionism coming out of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Many of these YouTubers, tiktokers, and podcasters point to the writings of David Irving as proof. I know he is a holocaust denier and an idiot, but I would like to read it so I could point out the exact flaws in Irving’s “evidence” and stop getting the comment “You haven’t even read it!”. I also don’t want to send a penny to this author, but also don’t want to break the law in getting access to it.

How would you go about this situation?

  • pemptago@lemmy.mlEnglish
    0·
    13 days ago

    Personally, I’d start with his wikipedia page, and the pages for his books. The people you’re talking to are likely caught in the fascism algorithmic funnel and have only watched videos rather than reading themselves. So they probably don’t have a deeper understanding than what wikipedia provides. That’s part of the appeal of conspiracy theories, that they’re bite-sized talking points that fit neatly together inside even the smallest minds.

    I’m willing to bet there are people who have already done the work for you and picked apart the books, and there’s probably conspiracy theorists who have come up with stories for each of those points. And now we’re approaching the point of Branolini’s Law, “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it”

    Beyond the scope of your Q, but if I could offer some advice: Instead of arguing, ask interrogating questions, as though you trust them and you’re genuinely trying to understand all the contours. You’ll quickly find many holes in their weak foundation. Success is bringing some awareness to how weak their info is. It’s like asking someone to show you around their messy apartment and now they’re a little embarrassed, so hopefully they’ll clean up or stop talking about it.

    Honestly, though, I’d have those convos in person (and worryingly, i have). Algorithmic social media is not built for deep thought or meaningful discussions. IMO It’ll just suck up time and energy that can be better spent elsewhere.

    • scintilla@lemm.ee
      0·
      12 days ago

      If you’re looking for a color e-reader the unfortunate truth is that they are just not there yet. The best on available is not really that much better than the Libra color since most are using the same technology as it.

      There are a few RLCD devices that are available but from my understanding they aren’t very well reviewed and basically habe to be outside to be used without a backlight.

    • capybara@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      13 days ago

      People who spread disinformation and conspiracy theories should profit as little as possible from it

  • Andy@slrpnk.net
    0·
    13 days ago

    I think people overthink spending money on things they don’t support. I think stealing it is justified, but If you’re doing academic studies or learning how to deprogram people, go ahead and buy a Nazi’s book if you have to.

    That said, if you’re looking to argue with Holocaust deniers, trying to defeat them by studying their arguments is a classic blunder.

    Conspiratorial thinking is rooted in social maladies, and attachment to a theory is a downstream effect. You can no more talk a Holocaust denier out of their belief with evidence than you can fix a broken water main by sand-bagging the street. If you’re trying to deprogram someone, you’ve got to learn how to get them to open up about the background experiences that led them to look for these answers and then usually find ways to help them find alternate communities that obviate their need for the conspiracy in a way that at least feels self-directed.

    It’s a much slower process, but if that’s what you want to do, read up on that and don’t bother wasting money on Irving’s book.

  • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    0·
    13 days ago

    You can wheels within wheels this shit for eternity. Answer this question and you’ll have the answer. What do you want to do? Do that.

    You can steal it, buy it, borrow it, whatever. Ultimately there is no objective right answer. If you think you’ll be better equipped to counter argue the message by reading it, I say that’s more honorable than arguing against it without knowing what it is.

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
    0·
    13 days ago

    Download a book? Illegally? Online? Through a popular torrent website?

    I would never do such an illegal and terrible thing!!

      • cecilkorik@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        13 days ago

        Yeah that would be bad. I think we can agree that if there’s one thing that’s even more important than the ideology of an author, it’s definitely capitalism, which is conveniently not an ideology at all, just one of the fundamental laws of the universe. That’s why it’s important to not pirate things for ideological reasons.

  • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    13 days ago

    Do you have to agree with everyone you give your money to? What sort of economy would that be?

    Buy the book on the premise that you want access to the content he spent energy and time to produce. Just like you’d pay to get access to any kind of content that you want to consume because it is the fair thing to do.

    Or get it at the library like everyone else said.

    Pirating it is not ethical of course, but furthermore it becomes hypocritical and intellectually dishonest if you would criticize some else for pirating content produced by any other author.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      0·
      13 days ago

      I don’t think people expect that you have to agree with everyone you give money to, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to try to avoid sending money to a Holocaust denier specifically for his Holocaust denial

      • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        13 days ago

        But the OP wants access to that content. It doesn’t matter what the content is, what matters is someone wrote it and they are entitled to payment from those who want to consume it.

        Alternatively they could just not read it or ask the people they are debating to send them a copy if they possess one.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          0·
          13 days ago

          I think the question includes a discussion of whether or not that access is worth sending money to the author, right? Like, even if OP completely agrees with your position about the author deserving money for access and also wants access, they may want to both avoid sending money to the author and to avoid stealing it more. Of course you mentioned the possibility of finding it in a library and someone else in the thread suggested finding it second hand, which are probably both preferable solutions here if they are practical

          • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            13 days ago

            I just don’t think there’s any room for debate. You can get it on loan, rent it, buy it secondhand or buy it new. Anything else would be unethical.

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              0·
              13 days ago

              That’s fine, that just means the ethical question is now “is accessing it in one of those ways worth the consequences of doing so?” You might well say yes or, as others in these comments have, argue that the consequences are negligible. You might say no. It’s still a relevant debate in the topic OP is asking about even if we completely accept your position about which ways of getting access are ethical

    • cecilkorik@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      13 days ago

      Do you have to agree with everyone you give your money to? What sort of economy would that be?

      Probably a pretty nice one, actually.

          • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            13 days ago

            You are not obligated to read the book.

            You should feel obligated to nothing except to remunerate people fairly for their work if you want it.

            • bitcrafter@programming.dev
              0·
              13 days ago

              Sure, I am obviously not obligated to read the book, but what I was specifically responding to was the following remark:

              Yeah isolating yourself from everyone you disagree with is awesome, truly nothing bad ever comes out of it.

              which in turn was a response to the following:

              Do you have to agree with everyone you give your money to? What sort of economy would that be?

              Probably a pretty nice one, actually.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      13 days ago

      I do try. I actively boycott shitty companies (for 30 years and counting) and my list is long and swollen.

      If more people took action on their principles our systems would be a lot less shitty.

      Just because you can’t boycott everything doesn’t mean you should do nothing.

  • voracitude@lemmy.world
    0·
    13 days ago

    Ugh, of course those people would point to any source that supports their current claim, without vetting the source itself. They’ll even tell you that of course they don’t support antisemitism, while spouting that antisemitic Irving shit all day, and that’s okay because they pick and choose only what they agree with out of the rhetoric. As though they couldn’t find sources that support their point without the concomitant antisemitism.

    First and foremost, then, I’d go about this by not denying the genocide in Gaza and not saying stuff such as “I bet you love Palestine” like it’s a pejorative, spacecadet.

    My second point would be to recognise that there is no moral or ethical reason not to pirate Irving’s works. If you were able to find it at a library, it would be there because someone paid a publisher for the copy and likely some kind of library license. Some of that goes to Irving. There is no way to deny him profit and acquire his work legally. So, pirate it. Fuck that guy.

    • spacecadet@lemm.eeOP
      0·
      13 days ago

      For some reason I don’t like Nazis, second most popular book in Gaza is Mein Kampf

      • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        0·
        13 days ago

        Take this quiz and see if you can tell the difference between Nazism and Zionism. I bet you can’t.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        0·
        13 days ago

        This is about the shittiest argument you could make. Good luck in your search, maybe you’ll find some self-awareness along the way.

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        I know you are a Zionist from our previous chats, but I absolutely support going through any of these books with a critical lens. Do your best to try to find inaccuracies or prove what they say wrong, don’t forget to look into the sources they reference throughout the books.

        Use Anna’s Archive to find them all for free, some I have already found full editions available online