[matkoniecz]

> Anyone who disagrees with Kaczynski's ideas because they came from a convicted terrorist should read the works of Jacques Ellul instead

I refuse to read or become exposed to some ideas because one of their proponents murdered people.

I want this strategy to be less effective, not more.

[boredhedgehog]

But the very fact that Kaczynski's ideas were widely published and read directly led to his arrest. If the consideration is to be purely strategic, his case should be an argument in favor of dissemination.

[matkoniecz]

This stopped applying since they were become caught.

[halothane]

Would you apply the same logic then to Winston Churchill, the British monarchy and its government? Under the guise of "civilizing natives", they were responsible for exterminating and murdering large sections of the population across Ireland, Africa, India, Middle-East and East Asia. Churchill was racist and a terrorist to many in the colonized world but was a prolific author who won the Nobel Prize in Literature. What's the difference between him and the unabomber?

[vkou]

It sounds like the easiest way for ideas to be killed, then, is for a few abhorrent people to champion them.

[golemotron]

Not really. There's something called The Streisand Effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect ).

Invariably, people take the opportunity to publicly declare how opposed they are to various abhorrent people, indirectly making others aware of them and their ideas. This entire page of comments on HN is a good example.

It's hilarious that people don't recognize that when they say "I will not read this" it is an advertisement.

[matkoniecz]

If I would become aware of some idea and not as result of someone trying to promote them by murdering people then I have no problem with reading it.