- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
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”.
Wasn’t he mixed up in the white supremacy movement?
Nah, you’re likely thinking of McVeigh, who cited The Turner Diaries.
It’s probably better to read the philosophers Uncle Ted was pulling from (and ultimately failed to understand).
Ellul especially.
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.
And say what you want about Hitler, he did kill Hitler
