I’m convinced that Gove read Irving ‘back in the day’ so I give him a pass for owning a copy. I still think it’s incredibly dumb to have it on display given that he certainly knows who Irving is and what he believes, but I do not think Gove is an anti-Semite based on that. The bigger issue for him is that there are some dodgy racial science books on his shelf as well. I’m not familiar with those beyond what I’ve read about them elsewhere, so I won’t comment on them further.
My main thing is that while it is okay to have read Irving in the past, it is not okay for someone to read Irving for the first time in the present day because 1) he’s a Holocaust denier, and 2) his conclusions are discredited and virtually no one cites him anymore. Reading Irving in 2020 is at best a complete waste of time and at worst indicates you’re either a Holocaust denier/Hitler apologist or an enabler of them. So, this defense you can see in responses to the tweets linked above that essentially equate reading Irving to being ‘well read’ is my issue. Again, I do not think this applies to Gove, but there are people suggesting that it’s still okay, even recommended, to read Irving. It isn’t. He sucks. Read Mark Mazower or someone (nearly anyone) else. Just as studying phrenology is no longer required to be ‘well read’ in psychiatry, reading Irving is no longer necessary to be well read in twentieth-century history. There is no ‘understanding both sides of the issue’ here. Said issue has been litigated long ago and Irving’s side—that Hitler was misrepresented and that the Holocaust did not happen—lost badly.
Trump is a sitting president; Irving is an irrelevant hack. Hopefully someday the same is true of Trump, but it is clear to me why reading the former is acceptable today without an explanation and why reading the latter is deeply problematic. (Beyond circling back to Trump’s tweets being primary sources whereas Irving’s books are secondary sources.)
This question brings up a philosophical question: Which wall-to-wall personal library is the worse to have photobomb you?
- A wall of Marylyn Monroe playboy shoots.
- Star Wars fiction
- Game’s Workshop fiction
- Dean Koontz fiction
- Ayn Rand shrine
- Ironic rap collection
- Ironic WW2 collection
The order you have—from least embarrassing to most dubious/likely to get you fired on the spot—looks good to me. I would probably move Koontz above the GW fiction and maybe the Star Wars fiction, though I’ve never read either so I’m mostly going by reputation. I figure licensed stuff is widely considered suspect making Koontz more palatable.
On the other hand, if you displayed the tweet on your wall and used it as a backdrop when you appeared on broadcasts, maybe you might be obligated to say something about it.
In any event, the original tweet isn’t stupid. And no one asked him to make any public statement.
To me this brings up a cultural knowledge question. Why is Dean Koontz worse then Star Wars? Isn’t he basically low rent Stephen King? All I can remember is seeing some of his books in libraries in the late 80’s and early 90’s but I didn’t want to read horror so I ignored them.
Also, I’m not quite sure how to parse an ironic rap collection.
I mean Koontz is just silly YA fiction/horror, no? I don’t see that as any more embarrassing than enjoying Star Wars or Harry Potter or whatever as an adult. It’s okay to still have dreams.
WTF an “ironic rap collection” is, I have no idea. Unless I’m supposed to be embarrassed somehow by enjoying the dominant musical form of the last 40 years?
Koontz is / was like low end B grade Steven King. Sort of like bragging about your Nickleback collection, and Steven King is bad enough.
Ironic Rap is code for racist collection, as in “lol look at this!”
Ironic WW2 is code racist collection ie they had such snappy uniforms, as you show off your stroopwaffel SS collection of helmets and knives.
Have you, like, encountered this?
Well, no. It was snappier than writing “colonial era memorabilia” and then having to explain what exactly that meant with all sorts of exaggerated statues and art and artifacts of Little Black Samba ect. Maybe not as accurate!
That’s what I was trying to say, yes.
Lantz
3352
100 copies of NWA’s Express Yourself
Are they signed by Evan Rachel Wood?
LOL, I don’t get that reference.
She’s the star of Westworld and recently testified before a CA legislative committee about how she was abused years ago dating Marilyn Manson. I thought that was the reference you were going for.
One of my work friends played D+D with Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) in high school. I don’t know either of their opinions on orcs.
Menzo
3359
I don’t understand how there hasn’t been an asset forfeiture case before the Supreme Court yet.
The idea that someone’s money can be guilty until proven innocent seems so blatantly wrong to me.
magnet
3360
There is due process, and nobody’s money is guilty until proven innocent. However, forfeiture is a civil proceeding, not criminal. It’s the same process by which the Goldman family seized the assets of OJ Simpson, even though he was not convicted of murder.
The problem is not that assets can be seized even without a conviction. The problem is that assets are seized by the state before the civil suit is decided.
