9 ms·

So, Amazon is still selling Mein Kampf. Going by the No Platform argument mentioned a lot in this thread, or by the right to choose how to do business, people

by 21 9y ago

So, Amazon is still selling Mein Kampf. Going by the No Platform argument mentioned a lot in this thread, or by the right to choose how to do business, people should be putting pressure on Amazon to stop selling it. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Struggle-Adolf-Hitler-ebook/dp/B01HE5UE04/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Struggle-Adolf-Hitler-eb...

SirLJ 9y ago
Let's start by burning books we don't like and disagree with...
- ratsmack 9y ago
  After reading this entire thread, I am amazed at the mental gymnastics elicited to defend the silencing of a group or person with distasteful views... I fear for out country.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    Reposting pieces of a comment I made yesterday: Defending freedom necessarily requires defending undesirables. Because undesirables are the people who benefit most from freedom. Think of the history of freedom enabling technologies. Copyright violators are the first people to adopt torrents. Pedophiles are the first people to adopt tor. Hackers and drug dealers are the biggest adopters of bitcoin. Undesirable extremists are going to be the group to benefit the most from the open web. Defending any of these things requires defending their undesirable users. Sure, it starts with the most extreme, least defensible things. Like stormfront. But you really think it will stop there? Where will the line get drawn? What happens when the next red scare happens? Politics is like a pendulum - it goes back and forth. Just a generation ago Communism was the persecuted ideology. People on the far left were blacklisted, silenced, and discriminated against. Was that ok with you? You want it to be 10x worse next time, by establishing a culture with no tolerance of differing opinions? Because that is where we are heading.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > Defending freedom necessarily requires defending undesirables. Not when the explicitly stated goal of those undesirables is the removal of freedoms (and in some cases, life) from a larger group. Then defending freedom means defending the larger group.
      - SirLJ 9y ago
        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule...
      - Houshalter 9y ago
        Yes and you can say the same thing about communists or whatever political ideology you don't like. "They want to take our freedoms!" is a popular expression in every political ideology. There is nothing in the first amendment about losing the right to free speech if you don't support freedom yourself. Monarchism was a serious threat at the time, but the founders didn't remove the rights of monarchists.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please stop using HN for ideological flamewar? It's not what this site is for and it damages what it is for. (What it is for: gratification of intellectual curiosity. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
  - SirLJ 9y ago
    The ideology is simple free speech and net neutrality!
wutbrodo 9y ago
As backwards and ignorant as I think no-platformers are, this isn't really a good example. There's at least a micron of self-awareness among people who support no platforming, and there are generally exceptions for things of historical significance.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Why do you think they're ignorant/backwards?
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    EDIT: I see that you've been down voted and I just want to make it clear that I didn't do that: I appreciate your polite question, especially in response to my insultingly phrased initial statement. Ha, it was pretty late when I wrote that; the language is probably a little harsher than I would use right now. I'm pretty deeply concerned by how rapidly my social and political circles have decided that the foundations of post-Enlightenment peaceful pluralistic society should be discarded in favor of short-term political wins. Concepts like a free marketplace of ideas are pretty remarkable social technologies; spend five minutes reading the history of literally anywhere at literally any time and compare it to the functioning of a liberal society, and it should be obvious how valuable these norms are. For some reason, people now assume that peaceful, orderly transfers of power are somehow natural in human societies and don't take the sometimes-difficult work of adhering to these norms. It's a hugely childish, short-sighted approach to the world to throw away one of mankind's greatest achievements because you can't be bothered to understand why they're there. Concepts like the marketplace of ideas don't have exceptions like "except for people who are wrong", because that presupposes the ability to judge your opponents' views as wrong (spoiler: everyone thinks their ideological opponents are wrong. that's what the word opponent means). This isn't a simplistically universal rule, as exceptions for things like directly advocating violence are generally accepted as part of the principle. But the minute you start stretching that to "but their views are _basically_ the same thing as advocating violence because [insert personal interpretation]", you're only pretending to be tolerant and you've opened the door for anybody to decide that anything is violence, as long as they can provide their own twisted interpretation of your views. It's not fun to defend the right of people to march with Nazi flags, but there's no way to avoid doing so without eroding the norms that protect far more important views. It's a sick joke that the most regressive among us these days are the ones who pretend to care for the marginalized: history tells us exactly who the burden of suppressed speech falls on in the long run (hint: it's not those with power and influence).
tomjen3 9y ago
This book is not currently available for purchase...
- 21 9y ago
  It was when I put my comment on. Probably some people reported it. There are other editions: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Vol-II-ebook/dp/B01DEB8OSQ/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Vol-II-ebook/dp/B01DEB8O...
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    Sorry, I didn't want to give the implication that you were lying, just that you almost predicted what would happen.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
MaymayMaster 9y ago
Are you joking? It's a significant piece of history, no matter how evil the author was. Get out of here with the book-banning nonsense.

by 21 9y ago

SirLJ 9y ago

Let's start by burning books we don't like and disagree with...

ratsmack 9y ago
After reading this entire thread, I am amazed at the mental gymnastics elicited to defend the silencing of a group or person with distasteful views... I fear for out country.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Reposting pieces of a comment I made yesterday: Defending freedom necessarily requires defending undesirables. Because undesirables are the people who benefit most from freedom. Think of the history of freedom enabling technologies. Copyright violators are the first people to adopt torrents. Pedophiles are the first people to adopt tor. Hackers and drug dealers are the biggest adopters of bitcoin. Undesirable extremists are going to be the group to benefit the most from the open web. Defending any of these things requires defending their undesirable users. Sure, it starts with the most extreme, least defensible things. Like stormfront. But you really think it will stop there? Where will the line get drawn? What happens when the next red scare happens? Politics is like a pendulum - it goes back and forth. Just a generation ago Communism was the persecuted ideology. People on the far left were blacklisted, silenced, and discriminated against. Was that ok with you? You want it to be 10x worse next time, by establishing a culture with no tolerance of differing opinions? Because that is where we are heading.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > Defending freedom necessarily requires defending undesirables. Not when the explicitly stated goal of those undesirables is the removal of freedoms (and in some cases, life) from a larger group. Then defending freedom means defending the larger group.
    - SirLJ 9y ago
      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule...
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      Yes and you can say the same thing about communists or whatever political ideology you don't like. "They want to take our freedoms!" is a popular expression in every political ideology. There is nothing in the first amendment about losing the right to free speech if you don't support freedom yourself. Monarchism was a serious threat at the time, but the founders didn't remove the rights of monarchists.
dang 9y ago
Would you please stop using HN for ideological flamewar? It's not what this site is for and it damages what it is for. (What it is for: gratification of intellectual curiosity. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
- SirLJ 9y ago
  The ideology is simple free speech and net neutrality!

wutbrodo 9y ago

As backwards and ignorant as I think no-platformers are, this isn't really a good example. There's at least a micron of self-awareness among people who support no platforming, and there are generally exceptions for things of historical significance.

ue_ 9y ago
Why do you think they're ignorant/backwards?
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  EDIT: I see that you've been down voted and I just want to make it clear that I didn't do that: I appreciate your polite question, especially in response to my insultingly phrased initial statement. Ha, it was pretty late when I wrote that; the language is probably a little harsher than I would use right now. I'm pretty deeply concerned by how rapidly my social and political circles have decided that the foundations of post-Enlightenment peaceful pluralistic society should be discarded in favor of short-term political wins. Concepts like a free marketplace of ideas are pretty remarkable social technologies; spend five minutes reading the history of literally anywhere at literally any time and compare it to the functioning of a liberal society, and it should be obvious how valuable these norms are. For some reason, people now assume that peaceful, orderly transfers of power are somehow natural in human societies and don't take the sometimes-difficult work of adhering to these norms. It's a hugely childish, short-sighted approach to the world to throw away one of mankind's greatest achievements because you can't be bothered to understand why they're there. Concepts like the marketplace of ideas don't have exceptions like "except for people who are wrong", because that presupposes the ability to judge your opponents' views as wrong (spoiler: everyone thinks their ideological opponents are wrong. that's what the word opponent means). This isn't a simplistically universal rule, as exceptions for things like directly advocating violence are generally accepted as part of the principle. But the minute you start stretching that to "but their views are _basically_ the same thing as advocating violence because [insert personal interpretation]", you're only pretending to be tolerant and you've opened the door for anybody to decide that anything is violence, as long as they can provide their own twisted interpretation of your views. It's not fun to defend the right of people to march with Nazi flags, but there's no way to avoid doing so without eroding the norms that protect far more important views. It's a sick joke that the most regressive among us these days are the ones who pretend to care for the marginalized: history tells us exactly who the burden of suppressed speech falls on in the long run (hint: it's not those with power and influence).

tomjen3 9y ago

This book is not currently available for purchase...

21 9y ago
It was when I put my comment on. Probably some people reported it. There are other editions: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Vol-II-ebook/dp/B01DEB8OSQ/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mein-Kampf-Vol-II-ebook/dp/B01DEB8O...
- tomjen3 9y ago
  Sorry, I didn't want to give the implication that you were lying, just that you almost predicted what would happen.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

MaymayMaster 9y ago

Are you joking? It's a significant piece of history, no matter how evil the author was. Get out of here with the book-banning nonsense.