Read on Twitter
In order to provide a careful critique of a book's arguments and claims, one needs to read it. Absolutely. One can, however, absolutely take a clear and principled stand against the fundamental position of a book, *especially* when the book itself is unambiguous about it. /1
So, for example, if I wanted to critique the nuances of the claims in a book about holocaust denial, I would have to read the book. I do not have to read the book to categorically disavow the legitimacy of a book about Holocaust denial. /2
The writer of the book -- and those who defend it -- can assert as much as they like that the writer is not anti-Semitic. They can passionately insist that it is certainly the case that a few Jews were killed by the Nazis, but that it is far fewer than 6 million. /3
These claims can easily be dismantled, and should be, but they do not have to be in order to categorically assert that the starting position of the book is anti-Semitic. /4
Such a book can and does exist. It is available for purchase and can be found in libraries. And it is important that it is exists so that we can point to it to show these dangerously false and vile claims. It is equally important that the book not be placed in "history." /5
I would be extremely upset to find such a book at Target, or to get a sponsored ad for it on Amazon. Both Target and Amazon, as corporate entities, are very careful what they choose to sell precisely because they do not want to upset more of their customers than they please. /6
Target or Amazon's choice not to promote or stock such a book is not censorship; it is a strategic decision based on the logics of contemporary capitalism. Contemporary capitalism's key value is making money, though that sometimes aligns with the values of consumers. /7
When, say, Target or Amazon's algorithms or forecasters make the wrong call as to what is best for their bottom line, consumers respond and they make a new calculation. Sometimes a vocal minority can create a shift. /8
That shift might feel like a real victory. And sometimes it is, if it prevents racist/sexist/anti-Semitic/Islamophobic/homophobic/transphobic material from being more widely available or easily accessible. /9
I am not sad when material that I see as dangerous is more difficult to access, though I believe it should exist. What counts as dangerous is a moving target and a subjective one, but again: I am comfortable making certain calls based on what the material itself asserts. /10
So, for example, if the starting premise of a text is that there is a "transgender craze" that is seducing our "daughter" (who do not necessarily identify as daughters!) one does not need to read the book to appreciate certain things about it. /11
The phrase "transgender craze" already places trans people in a particular category. Not all of them! the author is quick to say. Again: see earlier parts of the thread. /12
Having said that, I will read the book. Someone has to. And once I read it, I will be better equipped to make certain claims about its argument. But I do NOT need to read it to critique the founding premise. /13
Which is absolutely transphobic and dangerous. /14
