!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
https://annas-archive.org/search?q=david+irving
edit: on the ebooks topic, i've had a pretty good experience with the kobo libra color ereader along with calibre, but it's a miserable experience trying to read graphic novels on it-- any recommendations (that are not amazon/apple/android/google) for an ereader that can do graphics well?
You could just buy the book second-hand. Authors don't get any of that money, and you'll be able to get it for much cheaper than new.
Just break the law lol. The law is made up horseshit 😆
You could probably pirate it from somewhere
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Just live your life
Anyone with enough money to influence society already has enough money to influence society. Given them another $3 doesn't make you complicit
If they have problematic views but aren't pushing them on society... Well, no one is perfect.
Ultimately, voting with your wallet is a lie. Best sellers aren't the best books, they're the ones boosted by publishers and public figures. Just like the record industry - there's people who are literally choosing the winners and losers
What's the ultimate ethical implication of using ketchup at McDonald's vs buying a dipping sauce? There certainly is one, tiny as it might be. Use that energy to do good things, you'll make a far greater difference calling a senator than buying a lifetime of books
Or just sidestep it all and pirate it or check it out at a library
Threw out Gaiman's books , needs to be purged from history ( except Good Omens of course, because of Pratchett)
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.
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.
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
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.
I have some big news for you about libraries and second hand book stores.
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
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.
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
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.
Yeah isolating yourself from everyone you disagree with is awesome, truly nothing bad ever comes out of it.
Ergo we should feel obligated to give money to people who we believe are actively harming the world?
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.
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.
I would start by asking Anna if she has the book in her archive.
Download a book? Illegally? Online? Through a popular torrent website?
I would never do such an illegal and terrible thing!!
That method is horrible because the author wouldn’t make any money off of it.
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.
You could… hahum… found it there, lying on the internet… hum
go to a library and borrow it?
Not at local library
Do most public libraries have holocaust denial works?
In the UK, certainly. It's not the library's job to censor what the borrowers want to read, even if it's David Icke.
Some do, and inter-library loans are a thing.
highly doubt it, but i've seen some similar cases..
i would just pirate tbh
Furthermore, since it's very likely that this author is not going to make really complex points, you could just go to the library, skim through it for an hour or two, and take notes on the two or three points worth quoting. (Or go all old-school and make photocopies of a few pages....). This way there is no record of your use of this book anywhere
I utilize Libby and local libraries but it’s not available.
Legally, you could buy a used copy if you could find one.