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

Ted Kaczynski has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 823 posts

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#341

Post by watwut »

sph wrote: post #67
crhulls wrote: post #31

His manifesto is worth reading. Although he was obviously a twisted man many of his predictions for the future were eerily prescient. http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

Yes. Someone linked the manifesto in an HN thread ages ago, and I found more level-headed and thought-provoking than I would have imagined from someone able to commit such evil acts. I do not agree with everything he wrote in the manifesto, and certainly not with his violent methods, but it's stuck with me in this era of naive techno-optimism which I find myself more disillusioned with by the day. If the name on the…

> If the name on the front page was not of a murderer, I truly believe it would be recommended reading in schools and philosophy clubs

I assure you a lot of incredibly smart writing doing absolutely accurate predictions is ignored by schools and clubs.

Literally only thing that sets Kaczynsky apart are the bombs.

> , I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism and alienation we see today

Considering overwhelming majority of violence, authoritarianism and fictionalized is from right, by a large margin, this is massive meh.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#342

Post by jonhohle »

kneebonian wrote: post #234
ripourhero wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of operation condor? project mkultra? As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win (= survive as a culture against encroachment from different cultures) without violence. Today's mantra of pacifism and non-violence is just propaganda from current governments (all of which were originally installed through bloodshed, and kept in power through never-ending bloodsh…

Interesting you mention MKUltra as one of the reasons claimed for Teds "extreme" personality is because he was unwillingly drafted into and forced to participate in MkUltra.

I had no idea that he may have been part of MKUltra. Thanks for that rabbit hole!

As I’m reading through The Devil’s Chessboard (recommend a few weeks ago in another thread) I’m increasingly despondent about the “people”’s role in the US (i.e. we are now just chattel for the ruling class), and I haven’t even gotten to MKUltra yet!

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#343

Post by watwut »

sph wrote: post #159
anon291 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a very progressive person, I quite enjoyed his critique of the modern Leftist ideals and why they would create the factionalism we see today, and he's arguing not as a conservative, but as a third position that is not represented by any mainstream camp. Realistically his opinions are held by a substantial amount of people that most would label conservative, although it's not mainstream conservatism for sure. And…

As a non American, the dichotomy that is all the rage nowadays is two camps whose position is literally just "we hate everything the other side loves". The point of Kaczynski is that both camps are mostly composed of middle-class Western academics living a sheltered life that are deciding who is socially accepted and who need to be cancelled. Our culture wars are not minorities shouting for a better life, our culture…

You don't know much about Martin Luther King, do you?

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#344

Post by codetrotter »

crhulls wrote: post #31

His manifesto is worth reading. Although he was obviously a twisted man many of his predictions for the future were eerily prescient. http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

Ironically his manifesto is apparently what led to FBI arresting him.

> The big break in the case came in 1995. The Unabomber sent us a 35,000 word essay claiming to explain his motives and views of the ills of modern society. After much debate about the wisdom of “giving in to terrorists,” FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno approved the task force’s recommendation to publish the essay in hopes that a reader could identify the author.

> After the manifesto appeared in The Washington Post, thousands of people suggested possible suspects. One stood out: David Kaczynski described his troubled brother Ted, who had grown up in Chicago, taught at the University of California at Berkeley (where two of the bombs had been placed), then lived for a time in Salt Lake City before settling permanently into the primitive 10’ x 14’ cabin that the brothers had constructed near Lincoln, Montana.

> Most importantly, David provided letters and documents written by his brother. Our linguistic analysis determined that the author of those papers and the manifesto were almost certainly the same. When combined with facts gleaned from the bombings and Kaczynski’s life, that analysis provided the basis for a search warrant.

https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#345

Post by znpy »

timeon wrote: post #95
znpy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one of the funniest things for me is the fact that many left-wing people add Kaczynski quotes without realizing that left-wing people are basically the first people to be criticized and almost mocked in Ted's main piece, "Industrial society and its future"

Not sure why is funny agreeing with selected quotes while not agreeing with others.

would you still stand by your point if the quote came from (extreme case) Adolf Hitler?

if the answer is no... there you go.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#346

Post by dilap »

jmull wrote: post #146
crhulls wrote: post #31

His manifesto is worth reading. Although he was obviously a twisted man many of his predictions for the future were eerily prescient. http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

He’s really not coherent. His premises aren’t grounded in reality, and his conclusions don’t follow logically from his premises. It’s also lacks humanity or empathy. It’s an interesting read, because you can really see a broken mind at work, but there’s really not anything to learn from the ideas themselves. E.g., his mental model of “leftists” is truly bizarre. It would be funny except I know what it lead to.

Really? I would completely disagree.

Reading his manifesto at 14 after seeing endless newspaper descriptions of it as incoherent, rambling, crazy, etc. was an eye-opening moment for me:

I found the manifesto to be lucid and well-argued.

In a moment of shock I realized you can't trust the newspapers, at all -- a judgement I hold even more strongly today, with a few decades more of experience.

I'd encourage anyone who hasn't to read it themselves and form their own opinion!

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#347

Post by znpy »

numpad0 wrote: post #331
arp242 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would describe myself as left-wing, and I agree with some (not all) of his criticisms of "the left" in general. Turns out that left-wing people can have disagreements. Furthermore, I can reject argument X while simultaneously also accepting argument Y from the same person or book.

Turns out leftists love self criticism for self improvements. That’s inherently bad, right? (set aside that it often builds up to violent inner conflicts)

> Turns out leftists love self criticism for self improvements.

they really don't, and this is one of the reasons why there is so much fracturing in the left, usually.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#348

Post by ribs »

californiadreem wrote: post #32

Anyone who disagrees with Kaczynski's ideas because they came from a convicted terrorist should read the works of Jacques Ellul instead, of which Kaczynski's was largely a popular reduction. The Technological Society is the clearest influence on Kaczynski's manifesto, but Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes is possibly more pertinent in this day and age. Ellul was a professor, a pacifist, and a Christian ana…

[flagged]

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#349

Post by arp242 »

lvass wrote: post #292
arp242 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He participated in about 200 hours of experiments from the age of 16 to 19 which basically consisted of "roasting" and bullying him. The experimenters intentionally sought out the most insecure "maladjusted" students at Harvard (Kaczynski was accepted at 16) and lied about what the experiment was going to do. The entire thing was horrible and profoundly unethical. His brother has stated it really changed Kaczynski. S…

>Whatever the case may be, of the group of students that were subjected to these abusive experiments only one became a terrorist Source? What is the incidence of terrorism in that group and in the general population?

I don't have any data or sources on this; if my memory is correct the participants were actually anonymous and the only reason we know Ted Kaczynski participated is because of his brother, so we don't even know who the other people were. However, I expect if another one had also become a terrorist, we would have heard about it. There were just a handful of participants (1 or 2 dozen or thereabouts), so it's not really enough for a "proper study" anyway.

Also: many people (myself included) were extensively and viciously bullied in their childhood and/or teen years. Many suffer profoundly negative effects from this, sometimes for decades or even their entire lives, but most are not terrorists. And even if it did turn out that the incidence of terrorists was higher: that still doesn't absolve them or their own responsibility in committing violent acts against random people (i.e. terrorism).

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#350

Post by siftrics »

dang wrote: post #303
siftrics wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Personal attacks aren't allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it turns out, unfortunately, that you've been doing this repeatedly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35605613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35605547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34558731 https://news.yc…

I am writing now as earnestly and charitably as possible: could you tell me how what I wrote is a personal attack?

I want to engage on HN in a productive way and I do not mean to personally attack anyone.

I think the reason you were able to link to so many instances of me personally attacking someone is because I genuinely do not understand what you consider a personal attack. I thought I was arguing against ideas and statements, not attacking anyone individually.

I'd consider personal attacks to be ad hominem, which is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to do in my comment — I am trying to point out what is and what isn't a logically valid and argument.

Would you please help me understand? I'd like to learn and be able to engage in a manner that is accepted.

Post reply on HN