4 ms·
Please be accurate. Correct would be: They removed a book they consider anti-semitic. That is quite different from what you stated. But great to include the so
by RandomBookmarks 7y ago
Please be accurate. Correct would be: They removed a book they consider anti-semitic. That is quite different from what you stated.
But great to include the source.
- mbeex 7y agoThat's their reasoning. Which doesn't mean at all that he's not right. In case of doubt read the book.
- zuuow 7y agoBoth are correct. They removed a book they didn't like because they considered it to be anti-semitic. They are not exclusive.
- chronial 7y agoBoth statements are technically correct. One statement clearly transports the facts, the other is massively misleading. The additional use of "books" is further misleading and technically not correct. It is one single book. Is see no reason to defend this spreading of misinformation. Do you?
- zuuow 7y agoI disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated. "Books" may not be correct in this context because it's been a single one thus far, but if another antisemitic book appears, they'd probably delete it too, so I'd argue it sounds more like a norm than a one-off event. By removing a book they didn't like, they opened a can of worms, so to say.
- chronial 7y ago> I disagree that it's misleading, because the reason is not stated. No, the reason is clearly stated. "Did not like" is a reason. I am sure there have been many books on that list that the people at spiegel didn't like. It's just that "I don not like that" is not the same as "this thing is considered by me and many others to spread antisemitic propaganda and I don want to support that". The original statement implies that "we don't like it" is sufficient reason for the spiegel to remove a book from the list. That is just incorrect. > ... they opened a can of worms, so to say. Now you seem to be arguing that it is fine to spread a lie as long as you are sufficiently convinced that that lie will become truth in the future?
- zuuow 7y agoIf they removed a book because they didn't like it because it was antisemitic, then it's clear to me that they will most likely do so again in the future for antisemitism and, maybe, for other reasons. That's what happens with having editorial control: either you play sides (by removing stuff you don't want and maybe pumping up stuff you like[]) or you don't play sides (by publishing the rank without modifying it). And Spiegel is playing sides here. []I'm not saying Spiegel has done or will do this, this is just an example.
- chronial 7y agoNone of that makes the statement "the Spiegel list removes books it doesn't like" correct in a meaningful sense of the word. But I think I argued my point as well as I can. If I couldn't convince you yet that the original statement should not be considered "correct" and should not be defended when somebody mentions the actual facts, I don't think any more of my words will.
- miracle2k 7y agoYou are looking at that sentence too literally/technically. As a reader, I never considered it to mean "they remove novels when they don't like the story". Instead, from the tone, context (an internet discussion) and knowledge of how the list is likely to work, it seemed likely to me that the link would refer to one or more books being removed for political reasons. The words OP used are not precise, but they aren't wrong either - they communicate how he feels about the incident in question.
- s9w 7y agoYou and the others should consider that the reason the Spiegel gave was a lie. There is quite a heavy motive for doing so: the book is on the other side of the political spectrum, considering where the Spiegel lies.
- chronial 7y ago> The words OP used are not precise, but they aren't wrong either - they communicate how he feels about the incident in question. I think that is actually a great summary, thx. I guess my long conversation here is just an expression of my underlying impression that political discourse should in general focus more on facts than on feelings. People seem to be more focused on how they feel about an issue than its actual contents. But this is getting of topic.
- s9w 7y agoThey were caught with one, that's enough. I am free and confident to interpret that as: The list is 100% made up.
- lixtra 7y agoFunny enough the owner of Der Spiegel was himself considered an anti-semite by the Wiesenthal Center[1] a few years ago which stirred quite some debate back then. [1] https://m.jpost.com/International/Wiesenthal-dean-labels-Augstein-anti-Semite https://m.jpost.com/International/Wiesenthal-dean-labels-Aug...
- klmr 7y agoHe isn’t (and never was) the owner of Spiegel. He’s the son of the Spiegel’s founder and former editor in chief.
- Kaiyou 7y agoIt's the same thing, isn't it?
- magpi3 7y agoNo. Have you ever hard a joke that is racist or sexist but still made you laugh in spite of yourself?
- Kaiyou 7y agoHow does this relate to removing books from a bestseller (or whatever) list?
- magpi3 7y agoThe point is removing something you don't like is different from removing something that is anti-semitic. My example is a joke that makes you laugh but is inappropriate. It is possible to enjoy something and at the same time realize that it is offensive.
- Kaiyou 7y agoNo, there is no difference. The reason there is no difference is that there doesn't exist a rulebook accessible to anyone containing a part about removing "things considered anti-semitic" for this particular case.
- s9w 7y agoThey claim (or at least claimed) to be a bestselling list. This makes that claim obviously false.