Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

roelpeters.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 197 posts

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#161

Post by dangerface »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #42
PuffinBlue wrote: post #15

I did. And wrote about it[0]. And I'm not a techno-optimist but you won't find much to truly learn in the manifesto if you are one. The manifesto is far more about 'control' than it is about technology. He spreads the blame to the Left, the Over-Socialized, the 'Elite' and technology - with thinly veiled stopover at the 'stupid' too. And by 'control' he doesn't simply mean control through technology, it's about Kaczy…

to understand Kaczinsky is impossible without reading Jacques Ellul. His time in the woods doesn't make sense, his anger doesn't make sense, his slow (yes slow) self-radicalization and his terrorism doesn't make sense. Reading the Manifesto alone is what leads to terrible one sided takes like the Netflix documentary with its good-cop-bad-criminal narrative. if all one wants to do is confirm their position why he shou…

> His time in the woods doesn't make sense, his anger doesn't make sense, his slow (yes slow) self-radicalization and his terrorism doesn't make sense.

What part of this doesn't make sense? He did hide from society to wallow in his loathing of society until he had radicalised him self all the while blaming society for his actions. Yes that is exactly what I got from reading the manifesto he is an uncomfortable human-being who blames every one else for his uncomfortableness and uses technology as a scape goat.

> but to understand the man you got to read what actually radicalized him. Read Ellul!

This I agree with there is no reason to read his manifesto as no understanding can be gained from it without first understanding the topic and if you know the topic there is no reason to read it because it doesn't raise any new or interesting ideas in the topic.

People can read it if they wan't I did im not going to stop any one, but even if I wanted to recommend some one understand the ideas he was talking about I wouldn't recommend him simply because he just doesn't know what he's on about.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#162

Post by dangerface »

theelous3 wrote: post #132
dangerface wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "technology bad" isn't a point it's a statement like 5g makes my dick bigger, there is no reason or logic behind it. People can do bad things witch technology and we NEED to talk about it and consider the reasoning and logic of that technology as this article does, but this isn't the unibombers point of view he was just "Technology bad" The article makes good points and talks about ideas which have been talke…

> isn't a point it's a statement You can apply this logic to everything that's ever been said or written. It's a nonsense thing to say.

Questions aren't statements, you can write lots of things that aren't statements. What are you on about?

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#163

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #61
lucideer wrote: post #35

I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction. I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result. In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky's intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment.…

>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a prod…

Interesting. That would let you look at the same set of problems in society, and decide either that you need to fix the individuals (rightist) or fix the environment, that is, the structure of society (leftist). And their answer would feel so right to them (on both sides) that they would think that anyone who saw it the other way had to be maliciously advocating for a bad agenda.

And, in truth, neither view will do. We are more the product of our environment than the rightists think, but we are less the prisoner of our circumstances than the leftists think.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#164

Post by dangerface »

Miner49er wrote: post #125
skrebbel wrote: post #82

Most western societies have some core values that, although often under pressure, most people generally subscribe to. Eg freedom of speech, bothsidesism, etc. I wish we could add one to the list: if you commit violent acts, we will ignore what you said, no matter how much or how little sense it makes. Like, there's millions of weird extreme right manifestos out there, but the one by Anders Breivik is the only recent…

Do you actually do this? You do realize that means you need to ignore the police, military, and virtually every politician? Especially every person who has been president.

Yes of course, all these people you mentioned work for me they follow my orders not the other way around, why would I give a flying fuck what a politician though?

I don't care what the military of France has to say if they start shit, my countrys military will end it and me, my country and our military won't give a flying fuck what the France military or policy or politician has to say.

I get a lot of people just want a big strong benevolent [police, military, politician, president, terrorist] to rule and make them feel safe but power pisses on the weak.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#165

Post by AnimalMuppet »

tptacek wrote: post #114

I don't understand the fascination. Kaczynski was deeply ill, in ways that were somewhat apparent even before we knew he was trying to murder people, as he repeatedly failed to live a life in the continued presence of others. Instead, he lived in a dirty shack with a hole cut in its floor as a toilet (the irony of the lifestyle upgrade he's received with his cell in ADX Florence is widely noted). Kevin Kelly does a g…

I'm somewhat familiar with Kaczynski. I bought my first computer at a computer store he bombed, and I met one of his victims firsthand - once before the bombing, and once after. I've seen firsthand the pain that he caused another human.

But I'm not familiar with him trying to crash a plane. Can you give some specifics on that?

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#166

Post by archagon »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #61
lucideer wrote: post #35

I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction. I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result. In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky's intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment.…

>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a prod…

What? How can you possibly say this when the entire modus operandi of the conservative right (in the US) is unwavering deference to authority?

(On reflection, I guess "we have rules and you should have known better" could be construed as a belief in free will, in the sense of justifying the myriad ways in which systems pressure individuals. But it's ironic that the purported side of free will is the side of "president/cops/military/corporation/party knows best", while the other side is the one actually trying to enact change in these systems. Actual free will implies a feedback loop of observation, action, and reaction.)

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#167

Post by tptacek »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #165
tptacek wrote: post #114

I don't understand the fascination. Kaczynski was deeply ill, in ways that were somewhat apparent even before we knew he was trying to murder people, as he repeatedly failed to live a life in the continued presence of others. Instead, he lived in a dirty shack with a hole cut in its floor as a toilet (the irony of the lifestyle upgrade he's received with his cell in ADX Florence is widely noted). Kevin Kelly does a g…

I'm somewhat familiar with Kaczynski. I bought my first computer at a computer store he bombed, and I met one of his victims firsthand - once before the bombing, and once after. I've seen firsthand the pain that he caused another human. But I'm not familiar with him trying to crash a plane. Can you give some specifics on that?

Look up AA 444.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#168

Post by valvar »

crabmusket wrote: post #84
valvar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teddy K really is the best read. But you could always read the classic Silent Spring if you want something more mellow. The more adventurous could try Running on Emptiness by Zerzan who AFAIK isn't a terrorist.

I've heard Walden cited in this context too?

I've yet to read it, but from what I've heard it should be pretty related. It's a classic, anyway, so there's nothing to lose.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#169

Post by skrebbel »

voxl wrote: post #98
skrebbel wrote: post #82

Most western societies have some core values that, although often under pressure, most people generally subscribe to. Eg freedom of speech, bothsidesism, etc. I wish we could add one to the list: if you commit violent acts, we will ignore what you said, no matter how much or how little sense it makes. Like, there's millions of weird extreme right manifestos out there, but the one by Anders Breivik is the only recent…

I agree with your sentiment but you're arguing to the wrong audience. This is the same place that, despite any real evidence, has a user base that aggressively defended the usage of hydroxychloroquine. Perhaps it's a simple matter of Trump Cultism being able to infect any audience, but more likely I would bet it's an insidious anti-science. When you think so highly of yourself (as many HN posters do) as to ignore the…

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that HN has a singular opinion.

Of course in a thread about hydroxychloroquine, you'll find lots of people with a strong (in this case, positive) opinion on hydroxychloroquine. That's not representative of the entire HN crowd at all. People who are like "meh, I don't know" won't engage with that thread as much.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#170

Post by phaus »

tokai wrote: post #76
phaus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For about a hundred years it has also been pretty commonly used as a slur for mentally ill people.

Oh sorry, then it's a-okay I guess. /s

I don't recall saying its OK to use slurs against the mentally ill either.
Post reply on HN