I'm OK with people saying "you wrote a terrible book that nobody should buy or read."
I'm less OK with people saying "because you wrote a terrible book, we need to ensure that you are severely punished, that you present a public confession and apology for writing it, and that none of your writing is ever published or read again by anyone."
That was entirely up to you. That was a decision you made and blamed on someone else. I feel like that is something important to consider with your first sentence.
I find it rather interesting that someone wants to write publicly and can't deal with others disliking specific aspects of their writing. Not that the readers tell the writer they don't like it, but the fact itself that the readers don't like it and that they tell that to each other. I'm not sure someone this ill-equipped to deal with dissent should be on the Internet.
A lot of authors are deeply problematic. That doesn't mean you can't like their work unless a) their problematic views are baked into their work or b) they profit off their work and use that profit as a platform for their horrible views. Neither is the case here.
There's nothing unacceptable in calling for boycotting a toxic asshole. There's also nothing unacceptable in warning people against a book containing bad information.
Thing is, people end up looking up to the author of books they read, following them on twitter, reading their blogs, etc... So when those authors start spouting nonsensical rhetoric, it has a very chilling and negative effect on the community. Gatekeeping in this way leads to a less diverse group of people feeling empowered to speak up and contribute their knowledge.
FWIW, I did also learn python using Learn Python the Hard Way. And on its own, I do believe it to be a great book. But I don't recommend it anymore because I don't want my peers to end up looking up to some toxic asshole and getting disillusioned because of it. There are other great resources that don't come with this unnecessary baggage.
I haven't read the book, but the excerpts to me looks like someone writing some dark shit in a certain voice to entertain a certain type of reader. I see how people can think this stuff is in poor taste, but not sure I like a world where someone's "creative writing" (successful mind you) becomes grounds for dismissal from a completely unrelated job.
The claim is modest: I don't regret the decision. Disagreement in this thread is mostly piling on, one commenter says 'the post feels more like "please don't fire me"'. The disagreement is that "the author should regret it" which is pretty distasteful.
Alas, I think they're going to be able to find ways to make the "free publicity" harmful. These people are petty, but they're not stupid. I'm expecting GPT-written negative reviews (which will drown out the positive ones) and various chatter on social media that redirects any discussion of the work to discussion of the author and what he may or may not have done (nothing illegal, but stupid shit that's really embarrassing) 20 years ago. I know they're going to try to raise a cancel mob. They did it in 2015 over my (ill-considered) use of one word. I was using it as a regular trash insult, but a bunch of people got paid $75 a post to misrepresent my intentions on social media, and it ended up costing me job opportunities.
I used to believe that "there's no such thing as bad publicity", but that isn't true. If you get a negative review in good faith by, say, the New York Times, that's not going to hurt you financially at all. (Emotionally, it might.) Critical or even negative publicity that comes in good faith does tend to help you in the long run. On the other hand, if you get 100 low-effort negative reviews on Goodreads by people who've never read the book, your average drops into 1.x or 2.x territory and you're done. To the rest of the world, it just looks like you wrote a bad book. And if someone drums up a cancel mob, it can get really bad really quick.
The book isn't about the people are going to attack it. It's an unrelated novel. They're going to attack it because they're vindictive, not because there's anything in there for them to fear. They might be afraid that if the book succeeds and I become famous, I use my "platform" to go after them in the future. (It isn't really my plan, but I understand their paranoia, as I must sound a bit paranoid myself.) The book itself isn't going to "shed light on" them, though, as that's not its purpose. I'd rather forget entirely that they exist.
I'm playing defense here because offense isn't really a possibility. Some of these people, I know exactly who they are. Most of them are people who work for those people (or who did) whose names I don't even know. One of the guys who was stupid enough to attack me under his real name is some dork in Seattle (I'm on the east coast) who claims to have worked with me even though we've never met.
I'm less OK with people saying "because you wrote a terrible book, we need to ensure that you are severely punished, that you present a public confession and apology for writing it, and that none of your writing is ever published or read again by anyone."
reply