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

681–690 of 823 posts

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#681

Post by DonHopkins »

msla wrote: post #443
dbspin wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an ideological position, termed Capitalist Realism [1]. Given the failing of social reproduction, environmental protection, long term planning against existential and systemic risk, the mental health crisis and the collapse of civil and political life, under entrenched and victorious capitalism - an increasingly absurd one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism

Don't make this political.

That's exactly what people with indefensible politics say during political discussions, when somebody raises a point they don't like and can't counter.

If your politics are too vile to discuss and defend, then don't participate in political discussions. And stop trying to inject your own politics while telling others not to mention their, like you've been hypocritically doing repeatedly.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#682

Post by SllX »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #661
Roark66 wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, why do we so often see mental illness as an excuse for simple evil? As far as I know in most non-authoritarian countries if a mentally ill person commits a crime the factor that decides if they get punishment, treatment, or both is not if they are mentally ill, but if they knew what they were doing at the time was wrong. The burden of proving that is on the defense and it's not easy to do so as it should b…

I don’t think it’s an excuse or justification, but rather an explanation or motive. Unfortunately the brain is rather complex and can break in surprisingly many ways. One such example is the shooter who had cancer that pressed against his [iirc] amygdala. For Ted, we know that he was a subject of mkultra experiments, and that he was tortured. We know that he was deeply troubled and had communication issues. Perhaps h…

> In Greek αιτιολογώ and δικαιολογώ exist, where the former identifies causality and uses that to reason on the events and the latter is the same as justifying. To my knowledge the former doesn’t have a translation in English.

In an effort to understand your post, I ran those through the English Wiktionary which some may not know, also has foreign words.

αιτιολογώ: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%B...

δικαιολογία: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B...

My personal interpretation is that this like the difference between an explanation and an excuse, but perhaps someone here has a better interpretation.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#683

Post by PartiallyTyped »

SllX wrote: post #682
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s an excuse or justification, but rather an explanation or motive. Unfortunately the brain is rather complex and can break in surprisingly many ways. One such example is the shooter who had cancer that pressed against his [iirc] amygdala. For Ted, we know that he was a subject of mkultra experiments, and that he was tortured. We know that he was deeply troubled and had communication issues. Perhaps h…

> In Greek αιτιολογώ and δικαιολογώ exist, where the former identifies causality and uses that to reason on the events and the latter is the same as justifying. To my knowledge the former doesn’t have a translation in English. In an effort to understand your post, I ran those through the English Wiktionary which some may not know, also has foreign words. αιτιολογώ: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%84%CE…

Αιτιολογία and Αιτιολογώ are a noun and a verb derived from αίτιo (αίτια for plural) and λογος, which roughly speaking mean a [set] of identified cause(s) and “reason” respectively.

So this is purely causal without imposing the person’s subjective judgement onto the action or event; simply expressing that given the circumstances, it makes sense that the events occurred, whether the person was right or justified in acting as they did is a different story. So given the events I can reason why the action occurred.

For δικαιολογία / δικαιολογώ, the words are derived from δίκαιο and λόγος again; the former meaning the person is in the right, or is morally correct from the perspective of the person expressing it. Thus, justifying is closer to δικαιολογώ.

For an example; chores are boring, so I didn’t do them even though I promised I would. You can reason why I didn’t do them but you can’t claim I was justified in not doing them. I promised I would and breaking promises is generally immoral without s good justification or a reason.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#684

Post by pyrale »

nine_k wrote: post #609
jaredhallen wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think characterizing the contempt for technology only in terms of the advantage it conveys to the "adversary" is kind of an incomplete analysis. There are true and valid reasons outside that. I'm in the camp that it (technology) is a double edged sword. It's hard to argue with the improvements in medicine, reduction in basic suffering, etc. But it wreaks a lot of havoc in its own right. The question is whether the…

Is there anything in the world which is not a double-edged sword, something completely devoid of downsides? AFAIK only certain transcendent entities are declared to have this property.

Just because anything has drawbacks if you look hard enough doesn't mean that it's impossible to differentiate innovations on that criterion. Surely you can see how aspirin is not as concerning as leaded gasoline.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#686

Post by sph »

spurgu wrote: post #527
shrimpx wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "third position" is basically anarchy, or anarcho-primitivism. It's not really a political position, it's more like a pathological insistence that civilization should be destroyed. Kaczynski went as far as saying we're biologically wired to live primitive lives and we're misusing ourselves in perversions that he calls 'surrogate activities', which include science and art. To him, hunting or trying to survive whi…

I'd say it's more about autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, rather than just "living primitive lives". Technological progress tends to stifle all of the above, in the grand scheme of things. Think about owning horses back in the day, which you could simply breed to get more of. You could travel freely pretty much anywhere, no roads required. Compare that to a car which is manufactured somewhere far away with tons…

I agree with your entire comment, as another neo-luddite, but take exception with:

> Technology creates more boundaries, rules and bureaucracy, not less. Technology controls us, rather than the other way around.

Technology how it's wielded today, by lobbyists and government, controls and rules over us. But technology is a tool, and there is an unexplored problem space of using technology not to separate us from nature into rigid control structures, but to enhance our lives, to actually let us live longer, in harmony with nature.

Technology is neutral, but has mostly been used against us and this is becoming unsustainable and unacceptable.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#687

Post by localplume »

boppo1 wrote: post #332
local_crmdgeon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media will report on this as the death of a terrorist. None of the real terrorists will be brought to justice - the CIA has done so many abhorrent things here and abroad. We act like the KGB/FSB is this unfathomable, foreign evil. We have the bigger, scarier thing that killed it in our backyard.

The CIA has done some bad shit, even to their own citizens, but are they really on the level of the KGB? Seems like the KGB was a more overt daily-life terror, whereas the CIA has a more 'occasional' history of atrocities.

[dead]

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#688

Post by DonHopkins »

paiute wrote: post #552

I'm surprised mention of David Gelertner hasn't come up at all. He is a computer scientist who was attack by Ted kaczynski. He is an interesting person.

It's "interesting" that he pushes Intelligent Design, denies climate change, supports Donald Trump, and defends birtherism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter#Positions_on_s...

The Washington Post, profiling him in early 2017 as a potential science advisor to Donald Trump, called Gelernter "a vehement critic of modern academia" who has "condemned 'belligerent leftists' and blamed intellectualism for the disintegration of patriotism and traditional family values."[29] Shortly thereafter, The Atlantic published a rebuttal of The Washington Post profile, saying it was "hard to imagine a more misleading treatment" of the "pioneering polymath" Gelernter.[30]

Gelernter has "expressed skepticism about the reality" of anthropogenic climate change,"[31][32] rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus in the field.[33]

In July 2019, in a review of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, which Gelernter wrote for the Claremont Review of Books, he also rejected the scientific consensus of evolutionary biology.[34] On the other hand, Gelernter stipulates he "cannot accept" intelligent design either, saying that "as a theory, it would seem to have a long way to go."[35] In "A Response to David Gelernter's Attack on Evolution", Patheos, August 26, 2019, Bob Seidensticker writes: "Let's subtitle this story, 'Guy who made his career in not-biology is convinced by other not-biologists that Biology's core theory is wrong.'"[36] Computer scientist and mathematician Jeffrey Shallit wrote: "Gelernter's review was not published in a science journal, but in a politics journal run by a far-right think tank. His review cites no scientific publications at all, and makes claims like 'Many biologists agree' and 'Most biologists think' without giving any supporting citations. So, not surprisingly ... Gelernter makes a fool of himself in his review, which resembles a 'greatest hits' of creationist misconceptions and lies."[37]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/una...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/david-gelernter-...

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#689

Post by hutzlibu »

lelanthran wrote: post #666
sam2426679 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does a person go from being at Harvard to concluding the only way to make it better is to first make it worse Harvard is where TK racked up hundreds of hours across several years as a participant/victim of an MKULTRA experiment investigating how to break down someone's belief system. 'In his second year at Harvard, Kaczynski participated in a study described by author Alston Chase as a "purposely brutalizing ps…

>> How does a person go from being at Harvard to concluding the only way to make it better is to first make it worse > Harvard is where TK racked up hundreds of hours across several years as a participant/victim of an MKULTRA experiment investigating how to break down someone's belief system. "Because Mkultra" is not a valid mitigation or explanation of TK's mental health or lack of it. After all, the other participa…

"There's often no point in attempting to find reasons for why someone is evil. "

You mean it is easier to just jail or execute them?

Short term, sure, but if we want to solve murder in the long term, or just enjoy a stable society, held together by free choice and not fear or domination - then there is really no other choice in trying to understand what makes people go boom, so we can prevent that.

The alternative would be living in fortresses and going out only heavily armed.

Also, do you have a clear definition of "evil" at all?

I don't and I think it is kind of complicated. Starting with the old paradoxon: murder many people while you are in a army and you are a hero. Murder them on the street and you are a villain. So some say, all soldiers are evil murderers (and leave open the question on how to deal with the situation when they come for them or their children). Some say states are the evil. Others say stateless is the root of evil, etc.

And the Unabomber believed he did god, as he tried to end suffering. From a pure philosophical point of view, I can accept that there is a hypothetical chance, that he might be right. But in all practical matters he was a crazy, dangerous fanatic (something I translate to "evil").

But the thing is, many people think actually like him, even though most don't act on it. But they might soon. So now is a time, when one can still reach them. But that only works, when you try to understand their motivations.

And understand why they got there.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#690

Post by egorfine »

Roark66 wrote: post #653
fsckboy wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about someone who suffered from very serious mental illness. And we're talking about stochastic processes. We can agree that killing people or trying to kill people is terrible, but I'd stress the mental illness part so perhaps society will get serious about treating mental illness with seriousness. Our cities are full of mentally ill people living on the streets. Are they a ticking time bomb? was Kaczy…

Seriously, why do we so often see mental illness as an excuse for simple evil? As far as I know in most non-authoritarian countries if a mentally ill person commits a crime the factor that decides if they get punishment, treatment, or both is not if they are mentally ill, but if they knew what they were doing at the time was wrong. The burden of proving that is on the defense and it's not easy to do so as it should b…

> mental illness as an excuse for simple evil

It's not an excuse, it's an explanation for simple evil. At times I feel like people confuse these two.

Post reply on HN