I thought your comment was elitist for a few reasons. The most important is the way you portray "people" (the common man or woman is my inference of what you are talking about). You say "People remember only simple things, and like simple reasoning and solutions, which is what made him popular in the first place." I also object to your comment because I don't think this is a valid way to use hyperbole, if that is what you want to call it, since you aren't so much exaggerating as just saying things without a basis in fact. The Bible is probably the most read book in the world, or at least close. In vast swathes of the US, a large percentage or even most people read it consistently and even structure their lives around discussing it. Worldwide, there are over 2 billion Christians (focusing on just one religion) and a lot of these people are reading the bible, not just using it as posturing, signaling or ornamentation as you seem to imply. Mein Kampf has been widely read, and was a bestseller as recently as 2017 (in Germany!). While some no doubt use this as a symbol or ornament, it would be striking to me if a lot of people weren't reading at least part of it in all parts of the world, including the US. Still, despite being completely confused by your first paragraph, I mostly agree with your conclusion that coming after this book will just have the opposite effect and that it would be better to focus on actual crimes/other problems. I would want the poster from Germany to know that millions of Americans read the Bible and probably Mein Kampf, that this mostly goes fine, and that while some Americans might like a more German approach, a very large number probably don't want hardly any books banned or even made difficult to get and that this concept of free speech is very deeply held. If you're American, I think free speech is especially important right now because we all need to be talking with each other. The first paragraph in your comment also gave me the impression you might be out of touch with a very large portion of Americans, but I may be overstepping there.
My comment about "people" actually wasn't the hyperbole part; The "nobody" statements were the hyperbole.
The "people" part is just the standard evolutionary psychology that affects all of us. We have to take mental shortcuts because otherwise we'd expend too much energy thinking through everything. So we stick to simple explanations for most things in our lives without even thinking about it, especially when it comes from a source we trust. Propagandists have taken advantage of this vulnerability for generations, and will continue to do so for many more since our only defence is the few who actually DO devote much energy to examining all messages from the leadership (and we rarely listen to them). For the rest of us, simple reasons and explanations will have to do in our busy lives.
I did a study when I was younger of "readers" of the Bible, and found that, although many people will say that they read it, very few had enough knowledge to make that statement believable (Even on simple questions like "Who baptised who when Jesus met with John the Baptist, and why?" or "Why was Jesus so down on the Pharisees?" - many couldn't even tell me how many gospels there are!). So I find readership statements suspect, and stick to my original assessment that people rarely read the iconic works of the world, but rather rely upon what "everyone knows" about them.
> My comment about "people" actually wasn't the hyperbole part; The "nobody" statements were the hyperbole.
Yes that's clear. I was put off by the "people" comment, and separately by the "hyperbole" (which I still think are just wrong statements but it is fine if we disagree).
> I did a study when I was younger of "readers" of the Bible, and found that, although many people will say that they read it, very few had enough knowledge to make that statement believable (Even on simple questions like "Who baptised who when Jesus met with John the Baptist, and why?" or "Why was Jesus so down on the Pharisees?" - many couldn't even tell me how many gospels there are!). So I find readership statements suspect, and stick to my original assessment that people rarely read the iconic works of the world, but rather rely upon what "everyone knows" about them.
