What are the ethics behind purchasing a book from an author you don't agree with?

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 😆

Legally, you could buy a used copy if you could find one.

Library.

Buy it from a used book store. He won't get any money from it and you'll support a local small business

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.

I would start by asking Anna if she has the book in her archive.

You could… hahum… found it there, lying on the internet… hum

Piracy, maybe see if Internet archive has any of his writings. I would just try to find a source where I didn’t have to pay for it.

You could probably pirate it from somewhere

The ethics of social media dictate that stealing from people you've decided are evil is somewhere between totally ethical and a moral imperative.

Just get the torrent

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.

My man, try Z-Library. Check the subreddit for the latest working URL's that won't get you doxxed.

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.

Get it used. He gets no money that way.

Google the book title + “.epub”

If you're just worried about the law, steal it from somewhere in Austria. That dumbass did prison time in Vienna for his holocost denial, so maybe they seized all proceeds and profits and all that shit.

In most cases, it's wrong to violate the social contract, especially while benefiting from it. However: the harm done by violating the social contract should be weighed against the harm of not violating it.

In this case, the harm of violating the social contract is pretty minimal, as copyright law is not a fundamental part of the fabric of society. One can even argue it's kind of dubious, as something that moneyed interests favor very heavily with no similar moneyed interests favoring a strong public domain.

The harm of not violating it is not only do you give money to a holocaust denier, you're giving it to him for denying the holocaust. Even worse, you're giving him money for being wrong, and so effective at deception that you are compelled to spend money disproving him.

The whole point of copyright is to encourage useful works and spreading of knowledge and art. In this case the work is not spreading knowledge, but un-knowledge. Irving is exploiting a loophole in copyright law that allows him to work against its very purpose.

Thus I'd say violating the law is ethical as the benefits far outweigh the costs.