Did Ted Kaczynski have some legitimate points?

Post Reply New Topic

Why must we give the Kaczynski guy any credence?

Nobody is restricted from the free flow of ideas. Nothing should be off the table in terms of listening to ideas. What if Kaczynski held the cure to coronavirus? As demented as his actions were, should his idea be ignored in this case? Bad people can still have good thoughts and ideas and to deny that is narrow minded.

I'd sooner burn in Hell then to listen to anything that comes out of his mouth.

Irrelevant speculation.Yes. The ideas he promoted have already been stated by innumerable environmentalists.Nobody is denying that those thoughts (if he originated them, and wasn't just plagiarizing other people's work) were good; it's his actions -- and the redundancy of those thoughts -- that make him and his thoughts completely irrelevant.  You may as well be saying we should all read Mein Kampf because Der Fuhrer loved puppies.

Charles Manson was also a passionate environmentalist,he once said at a parole hearing that he was a prophet sent by god to save the environment.And believed man's destructiveness towards the environment justified violence.

So there you have it,violent criminals often have self rightious codes of ethic's that in there sick minds justify's there violent actions,nothing new.

Well considering you'd rather burn in hell than hear anything he has to say, you can't really claim that his ideas have been taken from environmentalists because you aren't open-minded enough to listen to his ideas to begin with and therefore have nothing to compare to said environmentalists.

Charles Manson didn't have an IQ of 170. He had a very long and extensive criminal history. Essentially he was a thug. Kaczynsky, as I stated, had ideas that went beyond mere climate change. They were rooted in psychology more than chemistry.

I've read the s***head's "Manifesto", and found it to be rambling, utterly derivative, and totally uninspired.

Alright, so we've got that out of the way. Consider this- I went from a video on YouTube about Ted Kaczynski and his psychology, heard he wrote a manifesto, then listened to it curiously and thus heard the ideas therein. Prior to this listening I had not read any works by environmentalists that had the same angle. Now, I am no expert on environmentalism and it is not by any means my main interest but I am interested in psychology and how different aspects of society effect it. So I found the ideas to be of some value. Having not read any other works of the sort, how can you say I am "derivative and uninspired"? If you would post the environmentalist works that he "plagiarized" and let me come to my own conclusion rather than react emotionally and throw a personal attack at me.

The closer to enlightenment, the closer to truth?

The closer to truth, the closer to insanity?

Kacynski got so close to truth that he lost his mind? (Which makes him interesting?)

I don't know why your arguing,I sort of said that Kaczynski and Manson had valid points,Manson was a genius at mind control,Kaczynski didn't get several young people on drugs to do his bombings for him, did he?

I think Manson's IQ was in the genius,remember Manson was born poor and didn't have access to good education,and those demographic things suppress IQ scores.People from poor school districts have lower IQ scores than upper middleclass and wealthier communities.

Ted Bundy was a lawyer and Jeffrey Dahmer was also very intellegent,evil people have talents in life but they still belong in prison and for Kaczynski,thats the toughest supermax in the country,and maybe a death sentence would be more appropriate.

I remember reading it and then reading up on it, and came across a college professor who basically said that it's not really Kaczynski's ideas, for the most of it, but a collection of other philosopher's ideas. The college professor didn't state whose specifically.

There's definitely some similarities to Lin Qichao, an early 20th century Chinese anti-colonialist thinker, but I doubt that Kaczynski would have read his writings.
Lin Qichao saw the Chinese people as having fallen behind in technological development and needing to "enslave each other" to catch up with the west, and reach a level were it can defend itself before it can be free again. Well. If the west enslaves itself as well out of fear of being conquered ny the Chinese, you got the perpetual technological arms race that enslaves everyone that Kaczynski is describing.

Yuval Harari recently wrote that science is about power, which is in the same vein.

The point being that human societies are organized around factors that are not under human control and come with their own dynamics.
Humanists will of course argue against that eith their humanistic ideals, but that only parallels the Melian dialogue.
The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

So, we're screwed. But there never was a time when we were not screwed. Anarcho-primitivism only means living free from some forms of subjugation, but it means having to suffer toothaches and snakebites and spears from neighbouring tribes.
Doesn't sound that amazing to me either.

This thread seems more of a promotion of the Unabomber's manifesto, and less of one for environmentalism.

I don't even know why this thread even exists anyway,so someone figured out that even the most evil aren't completely evil.

C.S Lewis said that even the devil wasn't completely evil and that the devil was the opposite of the arch angel Michael not the opposite of God.The opposite of God wouldn't have the intelligence and imagination that the devil has.

Big whoopi,the unabomber had some valid points even the most evil does,Kaczynski still deserves to rot in a supermax.

The thread was meant to promote discourse and exchange of ideas. This isn't about Kaczynski the man, it's about the ideas in his writings which many of you at the very least seem to acknowledge that the *origin* of had a point. I didn't make it too much about Kaczynski himself until people told me that I shouldn't have made the thread at all. But perhaps, I haven't seen these kinds of ideas outside of Kaczynski and therefore didn't have any other way to reference them. I'd much rather talk about these ideas and how they've manifested in the modern world.

Such as for instance, how they've manifested in the behavior and psychology of those who constantly self promote on social media, in particular how it's shaped Gen Z.

Or maybe the impact on the advent of online dating/hookup culture on society and how it relates to these ideas.

Or how technology has turned loneliness and love into a commodity through sites such as onlyfans.

Or taken to an even more meta-level; how society has reacted to these changes and made commentary on these changes through art and what we can learn from that art; for example music genres like vaporwave, philosophies and artwork based on futurism, ect.

Yes, for sending mailbombs. Not for the manifesto. But then, it's not so original, but merely a collection of ideas which imho are worth discussing and therefore promoting.

Sending mailbombs is not,and it's not a logical conclusion following from it either. He did that to blackmail mewspapers into printing it, and was himself well aware that it won't further any of the ideas within his text.

These days, we can simply post in a forum and discuss. Thanks to technology. Yay.