It’s fun to drop verbatim quotes from his manifesto into random internet discussions without attribution. A lot of people agree with his ideas without realizing it.
This isn't as indicative of ignorance or hypocrisy as it implies (and it comes off as a petty "gotcha" with an attitude of superiority). He said and did a lot of things. It's normal to variously agree and disagree with each thing in a vacuum. This is true of most political/societal figures, no matter how horrific they are, taken as a whole.
If we're talking about individual out-of-context quotes, I don't think it's correct to separate the art from the artist. Human language is very imprecise, and knowing the author of a quote can significantly change the meaning of a sentence.
I'm just going to make up an example: let's say the quote in question is "Democracy requires active participation." If I saw this posted by an anonymous internet commenter in a political discussion, I would completely agree. The obvious interpretation is that democracy works better when people vote, speak to your representative, organize, etc.
Now let's say the commenter reveals that this is a quote from a presidential assassin. Well, now I'm a little uncomfortable. Why did they choose this particular quote? Do they agree with the assassin's fringe definition of "active participation"? The intended meaning has completely changed with this new information. The identity of the author is part of the message, because we aren't talking about objectively true or false statements, we're talking about philosophical ideas that are much bigger than the quote provided.
I just wonder how many people who could have done better were blocked by the actions of all these artists people want to make excuses for. How many great works were we denied because someone insisted on making space for someone who repelled (or worse) better people?
The zero-sum command-economy view of free speech: we have to exercise prior restraint on what people can say to ensure that there’s room for the people we approve of to speak.
This seems pretty un-generous. The parent is citing a real, straight-forward cause-and-effect which does not necessitate or even imply a zero-sum game, nor does it imply the extremist solution you're accusing them of supporting.
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."
My post was a call for being smarter about who we invest in. I always wonder about people who call for separating art and artist over such mediocre artistry.
I haven’t read the entirety of his manifesto, but his ideas always struck me as typical narratives that resonated with people’s anxieties about modernity.
A bit of a bait and switch. Get attention with something shocking and violent, then appeal to worries through apocalyptic boogeymen. The solution, of course, is a sense of comforting tradition that the naturalness of the past is safe. A killer combo!
What are some good Nero quotes? Wikiquotes only has two; one of which is "I wish I could not write." which seems a bit ironic since it seems most of his writings are now gone.
> [Death in the battlefield] is what the youth is for, after all
...Which suggests (cpr. the "treasure" quote) how quote dropping is mostly a leisurely activity, given broad statements.
> I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few
...Which suggests - hopefully - how quote dropping is mostly a leisurely activity, given its non exhaustive intrinsic nature.
--
Edit: related (with the first branch):
> He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future
Put the three together ("treasure", "battlefield", "owning"), the whole idea gets a sinister tone; take "treasure" alone, it may even raise "awww"s - without substance.
That's because he took virtually all of his ideas from other people who said it better, and thus I'm not sure why one wouldn't quote those sources rather than a known terrorist and murderer? Young minds are often easily influenced and bad at separating the person and the message of the writing. It's kind of like inverse MAGA, where the cult of personality is the important thing and the content doesn't really matter, only its source.
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"
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.
Isn't that backwards? In-group criticism is how you get so-called "fracturing", which is arguably healthier (if less politically useful) than the alternative: "loyalty". I'd be highly suspicious if any group of tens of millions of people all ostensibly agreed on everything.
This doesn't seem like the tough question you think it is. I assume Hitler had some opinions that, taken away from the context of his goals, are reasonable to agree with. What makes you think it's an exception to the parent's point?
"Leftists" offended by these sentiments are most likely centrists. The goal of neoliberalism (read: the DNC) has been to shift the left to the center. This has been their objective for years. See: Obama, Biden, the Clintons.
Why do you think they don't realize (or don't disagree with your premise)? I think you'd be surprised by how many people are not in fact one-dimensional stereotypes who must disagree with everything a person says just because they disagree with some things that person says. I'm also confused as to why you seem to imply that people should be that way.
Virtually everyone who quotes Kaczynski is aware of his statements on the political Left, it's just that nobody takes that particular aspect very personal or seriously given that ecological anarchism, Kaczynski's position, has always been overwhelmingly a left-wing position.
His "criticisms" of the left read like something a denizen of /pol/ or Reddit would come up with. It's entirely possible to see the merits of his arguments against technology while dismissing his deranged hatred of leftists, feminists, etc.
The OP literally asked to "attack the ideas, not the man", and here you go attacking the ideas solely because of the kind of men who share it...
What do you mean by " it reads like something /pol/ or reddit would write "? Does Kaczynsky use tired cartoon memes? Does he accuse the left of insufficient weightlifting? Does he challenge them to a 1v1 in a Nintendo fighting game?
What part of his criticism do you actually find wrong?
Lol had not heard this one. The left has "insufficient weightlifting".
Might be true.
Could it be that on the left there are more endurance sports, for health. And on the right there are more muscle building sports, so they can strike cool poses with their guns?
It's pretty common. Don't be surprised if you get called a dyel (DYEL, Do You Even Lift) lanklet (small, not fat or muscular) runcell (someone who runs to try to get women, but would be better off lifting).
His criticisms of leftist activism in the 1990s is that it will always seek to control and exploit technology to implement their ideology so followers of his anti-tech movement should not rely on them. He then rants against 'green anarchy' claiming it is a kind of naive forest worshipping cult that also should not be included in whatever anti-tech movement. It is a small part of his overall manifesto on who you shouldn't trust to join a specific (terrorist) movement and likely came from his time in academia.
It's definitely not the standard fare you would find on those 2 sites you mentioned just a brief 'don't trust these activists they want the philosopher stone for themselves'.
That's unfortunate because he expanded on ISAIF at length in his prison writing and took a more thoughtful and look at a lot of existing political tropes. For example, in his Anti-Tech Revolution* he lauds the tactics of early feminists' campaigns to obtain voting rights for women, and similarly deconstructs a lot of flaws in right wing ideology.
I disagree with a lot of Kaczynski's ideas and methods, but I still regard him as an important thinker and wish people would read his output in full rather than rushing to have the hottest take (not meant as a dig at you, rather the avalanche of attempted zingers on Twitter and in the media over the weekend).