- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
To all the people in the comments being like “Ted had some good points.” Judi Bari, Peter Kropotkin, and Murray Bookchin are all people who have written about environmentalism and the problems of technology, industrialization, and such and better than the reactionary psychopath did. Fascists love the unabomber and use him to normalize eco-fascism. Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.
Uhhhhh
Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points
Doesn’t this inherently imply he does in fact have good points if they’re making the same points… you also make a good point that there’s better sources that don’t come with a ton of ideology baggage but what your saying here is yes he does have good points but read someone else saying his points instead
Yes that is what I am saying. But just because someone made some good points doesn’t mean we should keep using them as the defacto idealogue. Imagine if we kept saying “Hitler had some good points” when talking about animal rights or Osama Bin Laden for anti-imperialism. If you want an edgy thing to make a meme like this out of, use the ELF or ALF. Two groups that are controversial but lack the eco-fascism narrative of the unabomber.
there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.
Seems like a great reason to discuss Ted’s viewpoints. We should definitely discuss the ineffectual extremists. Compare and contrast. Weigh and measure. That’s what truth-seekers do. Telling people not to read a particular author borders on censorship.
But asking people to expand their reading list and providing actual recommendations - that is wonderful and commendable. Thank you for that!
I never said don’t read it, but comparing and contrasting is not what is happening. Its like when Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto or whatever was making the rounds and everyone was like “ya know he makes some good points.” Everyone just keeps parroting the points of far-right extremists cause they pointed out a pretty universal issue like imperialism, consumerism, environmental destruction, etc. If the only perspective that gets spread is that of a far-right nutjob, then it normalizes the problematic parts of their perspective. Its always just begins and ends with “the unabomber made some good points.” Not “the unabomber made some good points, but Bookchin is more practical and not a eco-fascist.”
deleted by creator
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. I don’t really care if the duck says its not a duck and that it is against ducks, its still a duck. When you go about blaming the lefties (of which he labelled fascists as leftists) and the gays, and envisioning a society that would functionally genocide a bunch of people I am gonna call you a fascist. Cause if we just got rid of technology and returned to primitive living, a lot of people would die. Namely disabled people and people with chronic illnesses. It is indirect eugenics. Its exactly why most anarchists nowadays do not associate with anarcho-primitivists, and call them eco-fascists as well.
The reason why people like Bookchin and Bari are better is because they critique industrialization while putting forward solutions that don’t kill a bunch of people.
And lets not pretend like fascism is this coherent or cohesive ideology. Its an ideology of opportunism. Mussolini and Hitler were vastly different, and even just comparing Mussolini’s writing to his actions there’s a lot of differences. For example Mussolini’s writings were anti-monarchist, yet the monarchy remained in fascist Italy because it gave him an opportunity.
Ted might not have been a fascist directly, but his ideology is not incompatible with fascism. And the consequences of his ideology is still genocide, even if indirectly.
My neurological disease happened after we moved near the highway. I hate vroomers more than anything. Just walk instead of poisonning the air, fatzo
The invention of cars was a mistake, horses arevway cooler anyway
and its not even cars. It’s capitalist consumerism and corruption that made them mandatory for everybody.
Wasn’t he mixed up in the white supremacy movement?
Nah, you’re likely thinking of McVeigh, who cited The Turner Diaries.
Yeah probably.
Haven’t read unobomber’s manifesto and probably never will because fuck anyone who seeks attention this way.
I don’t approve of his methods, either.
Then again, I don’t approve of the Church’s methods, but there’s some pretty good stuff buried in the Christian bible, too.
Reading something doesn’t mean you need to agree with the author. It’s not like people are financially supporting the Unibomber, or excusing his actions, when they read his manifesto. They’re just studying history.
The comment was half just an excuse to mispell the name after OP set it up like that.
But from what I’ve heard, I’m not missing much of value, so I’d only be reading ramblings of a madman.
“We give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society’s standards. That, and we’re too plugged in. We’re letting technology take over our lives, willingly.”
Absolute insanity. Obviously a madman.
Well I didn’t need Ted to figure that out. How does the rest hold up?
Just gonna rip from Wikipedia
With its initial publication in 1995, the manifesto was received as intellectually deep and sane. Writers described the manifesto’s sentiment as familiar. To Kirkpatrick Sale, the Unabomber was “a rational man” with reasonable beliefs about technology. He recommended the manifesto’s opening sentence for the forefront of American politics. Cynthia Ozick likened the work to an American Raskolnikov (of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment), as a “philosophical criminal of exceptional intelligence and humanitarian purpose … driven to commit murder out of an uncompromising idealism”.
UNObomber? Is that the Mexican knockoff version?
Unebomber had some valid complaints
They have been made by much better people who weren’t also eco-fascists.
Yes, but few people talk about them.
Thats the problem. So maybe rather than giving the eco-fascist more coverage, we should highlight people who deserve it
It’s probably better to read the philosophers Uncle Ted was pulling from (and ultimately failed to understand).
Ellul especially.
Which philosophers?
Ted misses a lot in Jacques Ellul’s The Technological Society, which is where I’d start off f your looking for philosophers critical of modern technology.
If you’re curious on that particular subject, I’d also recommend Lewis Mumford’s Myth of the Machine or The City in History.
Or, for something that’s less of a tome (both Ellul and Mumford can be overly wordy), Ivan Illich’s Tools for Conviviality is incredibly critical of the modern world, but also offers hope that isn’t based on mailing bombs to universities.
Ellul is a wonderful author, very inspiring. As someone inspired both by Christianity and anarchism, he’s one of the authors in my personal pantheon.
Just don’t read his texts about Israel.
Might be a matter of taste, but ISAIF is worth a read on the basis of its wild mix of sociological brilliance and unhingedness IMO. That’s not to say I endorse blowing people up in the slightest, but the work stands taller than the sum of its influences.
E.g. I think he synthesized and added to quite a few different authors in presenting his concept of oversocialization. (Please do correct me if I’m off-base — I love philosophy but it’s not my main wheelhouse).
ISAIF?
Industrialized Society and Its Future (name of the manifesto)
You enjoy doing extra work? Why not explain the gibberish acronym in the first comment?
Oh! I’m soooo sorry! I thought everyone wrote their dissertation on Ted “My First Love” Kaczynski?
Listen to yourself, you sound ridiculous.
It’s just off-the-cuff writing without copyediting. Tad sloppy, but weird hate, homie.
E: To squarely address my view of Teddy K, he’s in the same bucket as Karl Marx, Otto Von Bismarck, Rasputin, etc. Not someone whose core values I share, or think is a good person — but a historically interesting character who has cultural symbolic importance for the role they played in their respective time and place.
Has good points… decides the best way to bring those points to the world is planting bombs.
Adam Lanza had some good points about autism (remember when he called into that radio show?). His subsequent expression of his feelings about the world was less than optimal. There’s no need to give the cunt kudos for his insights.
This is some “say what you like about Hitler, but at least he made the trains run on time!” level of vacuous.
I mean, you’re not entirely wrong, but TK killed 3 and injured less than 30. Harry Truman killed vastly more people than TK and he’s essentially lauded, as most ex presidents are.
