Drag Queen Lady Bunny's take on it...
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
247 points (94.9% liked)
News
22612 readers
3640 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don’t really see an issue with this position. Replacing book bans with de facto bans by refusing to stock them could also become a problem. I’ve read Mein Kampf and I’d still gladly slug a Nazi.
Mein kampf is a terribly written book. Maybe it's a translation issue? Does it read better in German?
I read it in English so I can’t say. I just chalked it up to Hitler being a dipshit
I've heard Germans say it's terrible in German too.
It is very bad. It is absolutely not a book that is so dangerous that just reading it will turn you into a Nazi. The content is of course atrocious, but the writing is so, so bad that you won't even notice the content because you just can't read the crap. Actually, I would be very wary of anyone who claims to have read the whole thing outside of uni, because there is something very wrong with them.
I am confused... its a banned book in germany.
TLDR: "Mein Kampf" was never actually banned in Germany but its complicated.
I am from Germany and the fate of the book after WWII is pretty wierd, this is just written from memory and its way more complicated as history always is.
First you need to understand in nazi germany nearly everyone had a copy of "Mein Kampf" , it was given out like candy and not accepting/buying it would be pretty suspicious to the secret police. (had lots of talk about it with my 90 year old grandma, you needed to fly the swastika at every occasion and be able to produce shit like the flag and the book in case you were ever under suspicion or else... ) After the War most people got rid of the stuff or put it in the back of the attic because of ongoing denazification and to forget ( my guess is because the book is an afront to literary sensibilities).
Hitler seems to have bequeathed everything he owned to the German State, including the Copyright of "Mein Kampf". That meant the exclusive publishing rights went to the Bavarian State, because he had his official residence in Munich. Now the Bavarian Government decided to just dont print the book and nobody could legally produce and sell new copies. This worked pretty much as a defacto ban because for obvious reasons, including it's just unbelievably bad not only in content but in language as well, only (neo-) nazis or historians (who could just get it in Archives/University libraries or from that one wierd grandpa who likes showing of his medals and rants about the jews) would even want that book in post war Germany. Basically everyone was fine with the status quo and it went ignored.
Fast forward to ~2010 and Historians realise a Dilemma. They decided to start producing "Mein Kampf" as a heavily annotated "critical edition" because the German Copyright will run out at the end of 2015, and the defacto ban would be lifted. At the time that was quite controversial, discussions about banning it completely or even making it a mandatory read in history lessons, so teachers could put it in context, were ongoing.
Right after the copyright ran out the book was published, again to much controversy. I am pretty sure it actually sold well, atleast at first. Today its a nonissue again and there are still people in Germany who think its illegal to own a copy because why would you even want to read that shit, its worse than Atlas Shrugged.
its worse than Atlas Shrugged
Lmao
Looking it up, it was never banned, it was just prevented from being reprinted due to the government holding the copyright and not making it available. It's now in public domain.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/hitlers-mein-kampf-to-go-on-sale-in-germany
The German state of Bavaria has held the copyright for Adolf Hitler’s autobiography since 1945 and has withheld publishing the book, preventing any reprints in Germany. But in 2016, the book becomes available in the public domain, which will make it widely available in Germany for the first time since World War II.
That means it was perfectly legal to have it, it just couldn't be printed in Germany.
There are Germans outside of Germany and there are also ways to access information anyway. Also, I have no knowledge of this but I'm sure there are legal ways to access it as well, for studying History or Hitler's life or whatever else. Rarely are bans total for anything. There's almost always exceptions.
No it is amazing. It is so amazing to read, that a Turkish origined comedian took it up on him to read it to Germans, to show them just how great it was.
Resulting in even some hardcore Nazis to end up laughing, because the book is just completely utter horseshit.
bookshops can't stock every book. Just because they don't stock Georges Perec's Species of Spaces or Italo Calvino's If On A Winter's Night A Traveller or Marcia Citron's 1988 biography of 19th century composer Camille Chaminade doesn't mean those books are banned - they're niche.
It seems more likely that current, contentious, right-leaning polemic is in a lot of stockist warehouses due to the political machine and the supply chain software is just presenting the inventory without comment.
So a book store pushing an anti book banning agenda is in trouble for not banning books?
Paradox of tolerance stuff here.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle (slavery stan)
(transcribed from a series of tweets) - @iamragesparkle
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
There's a fundamental difference between allowing Nazis to gather in your bar and selling works by fascist authors. First and foremost is the reality that anti-fascist action requires knowledge of fascist rhetoric, it is not just Nazis that have read Mein Kampf. It's also just an unfair comparison. Nazis aren't going to be attracted to buying their rhetoric only from a drag queen and hanging out in an online book seller's coffee shop...
And even if they were... Good? Experience is the bane of fear and hate.
I personally don't think it's particularly worthwhile, but there's also the aspect of harm reduction.
Would you rather RuPaul get the proceeds from the sale, or the Koch Brothers?
This is not a simple question with objective facts to lean on. It is a conflux of opinion and ideology.
That wiki page looks like Donald's arch nemesis.
I agree that we shouldn't be tolerant of the intolerant, but I don't think censorship is the right tool to use in that fight.
It isn't censorship to refuse to be a part of distribution, just as it isn't censorship for a publisher not to print a book they don't think will be profitable.
Burning the work, punishing the author, punishing anyone that prints it, banning it from print, that is censorship.
They are entitled to the ability to write and to publish, but they aren't entitled to make others take part in it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Should we put Nazi propaganda books for children into libraries?
Don't we?
I mean, as long as there aren't any mentions of the LGBT+ community in them.
Nope, that ain’t it.
Yay capitalism?
I imagine that’s a common pitfall for most online bookstores that have any sort of volume. Unless you want to proofread and curate every single thing that gets sold, there’s bound to be things that slip through. The article even mentions they sell 10 million books… just not possible to curate properly.
And personally, I’d rather have a bookstore that occasionally sells a questionable title, rather than one that actively censors itself. There’s plenty of titles out there that someone would deem offensive, while others consider it essential works.
Heck, there have been many scholarly annotated versions of Mein Kampf as the article mentions. It’s a historically significant work, penned by a madman. Not everyone who’d read it is by definition a Nazi. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it could cure some of them if they did read it. It’s a terrible book. Even when it was first published it got shitty reviews.
This is just a drop shipping operation. It's not "some things slip through." Rupaul had just attached their name to a drop shipper that serves the broadest audience possible. There's no curation. There's no safety.
RuPaul had come under fire previously for being anti-trans, but it's okay because they apologized on Twitter by posting the wrong flag (literally a flag for trains - and I'm not making that up).
Regardless of your stance on the issue of a bookstore with a no-banning-books mission not banning books, RuPaul clearly is not an ally and this isn't surprising.
How the fuck is someone who is so well-known for drag, not a trans ally?
What synapses have collapsed in his brain to allow for this cognitive dissonance?
The person you're replying to is being a typical internet person.
Rupaul's Drag Race used to not allow trans contestants. It does now. We've had more than one trans Winner.
Ru got some backlash for implying that being trans would be an unfair advantage on Drag Race, comparing it to taking performance enhancing drugs for the Olympics. She later apologized for it.
The show also had some vernacular that was very common in its early days which the trans community pointed out weren't OK and it changed overtime.
Ru is a fairly old gay man who has done a pretty good job of changing with the times comparatively.
He's rich, that's how.
I like their reaction, no censure, just donating profit
The criticism comes after users on X (formerly Twitter) exposed the site for listing books by authors known for their anti-LGBTQ+ stances, including titles by Riley Gaines, Robby Starbuck, Kirk Cameron, and other books from the conservative publisher Brave Books
So, like, thank you for pointing out a legitimate problem here and inspiring RuPaul's team to try to do better, but complaining about people allowing fascists to get financial support on twitter of all places feels a bit inconsistent
We censoring books or not? I vote not. Is it so hard to be consistent?
You can't seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don't think you'd be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp.... Right?
Edgecases are why it's hard to be consistent.
That’s illegal and for good reason.
Yet somehow the US functions with freedom of speech even with some restrictions.
But we’re not talking about CP are we? We’re taking about how we are still dealing with rightoids censoring books and now the left wants certain ones censored.
I argued against the right censoring books and I’ll continue to argue the same way, regardless of who the next shitty group trying it is.
That's my point though. If you don't ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I'm saying your argument isn't thorough enough. It's not going far enough. It's scratching the surface and saying "good enough" when it doesn't actually appear to be.
I am talking about illegal things because it's an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you're being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?
Yeah, let's put "Der Giftpilz", meaning "The poisonous mushroom" - a German children's book from 1938 - up for sale everywhere.
Children should learn how Jews are the poisonous mushrooms of humanity because they rape German girls, killed Jesus and doom humanity if we don't find a solution to the Jewish Question.
This book can be legally sold in the US.
It almost as if education and critical thinking about what one is reading is important.
That book can be read to children in the context of it being wrong. It can be explained to children why it is wrong and that just because they read something in a book doesn't mean it's right.
What's better, educating people to think critically, or banning things so they don't have to think at all?
I'm sure this will be the reason anyone purchases this book.
Besides you don't expose children to Polio to strengthen their immune system, you give them a weakened version. The beautifully illustrated book with arguments which sound logical to children, tons of non-verbal messaging and countless hateful stereotypes is not how you educate children.
A conservative could say the same thing with a different book.
Stop trying to ban books.
They will ban books regardless of whether harmful books are banned.
Freedom of speech doesn't extend to incitement of hatred. If it does, your laws don't protect freedom of speech as much as they protect the freedom to call for, and eventually cause, genocide.
Free speech DOES extend to hatred, though.
Did y'all forget the ACLU once defended the National Socialist Party of America's right to free speech?
If you expect your right to say "fuck the police" or wear a shirt emblazoned with the same, you can't go around saying the law should keep someone from wearing a swastika. BOTH are protected by the right to free speech, as much as you and much of the left don't want to admit it.
I stand for the PRINCIPLE of free speech rather than wheeling it out to defend speech I like but then pretending like it doesn't exist to suppress speech I don't.
In order to preempt some of the more predictable responses to this, no, private companies cannot violate your right to free speech - only the government can. So if the book company in the OP decides to stop selling some books, I would not consider it to be violating free speech. But I think the conversation has strayed from that specific instance at this point.
According to the Paradox of tolerance from an above poster, you cannot be fully tolerant.
Twitter people pointed out that Mein Kampf is sold there, but it's a historic book and valuable to read to understand the roots of fascism to fight it.
Mein Kampf is a pretty poor source to understand the roots of fascism. People have this idea, that Hitler was some elaborate writer, who laid out a comprehensive and enchanting piece of work, that was then surrounded by mysticism.
You don't understand the roots of fascism from books written by fascists. You understand it from looking at fascists in action, both on the side of agitators and those following the agitation. And the roots are pretty simple: Combine fear with hatred and an inferiority complex, mix it with simple solutions and by elevating individuals of the in-group by terrorizing the out-group.
Yeah people should have access to the nutjob right wing shit as a learning tool. Can't defeat your enemy unless you understand them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›