No Stupid Questions

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.

Google the book title + “.epub”

Get it used. He gets no money that way.

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.

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.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Just live your life

Anyone with enough money to influence society already has enough money to influence society. Given them another $3 doesn't make you complicit

If they have problematic views but aren't pushing them on society... Well, no one is perfect.

Ultimately, voting with your wallet is a lie. Best sellers aren't the best books, they're the ones boosted by publishers and public figures. Just like the record industry - there's people who are literally choosing the winners and losers

What's the ultimate ethical implication of using ketchup at McDonald's vs buying a dipping sauce? There certainly is one, tiny as it might be. Use that energy to do good things, you'll make a far greater difference calling a senator than buying a lifetime of books

Or just sidestep it all and pirate it or check it out at a library

Threw out Gaiman's books , needs to be purged from history ( except Good Omens of course, because of Pratchett)

Do you have to agree with everyone you give your money to? What sort of economy would that be?

Buy the book on the premise that you want access to the content he spent energy and time to produce. Just like you’d pay to get access to any kind of content that you want to consume because it is the fair thing to do.

Or get it at the library like everyone else said.

Pirating it is not ethical of course, but furthermore it becomes hypocritical and intellectually dishonest if you would criticize some else for pirating content produced by any other author.