[blackeyeblitzar]

Leaving his terrorism aside, I wonder what HN readers think of his ideas and writings. A glance at what he wrote makes it look pretty interesting. But I feel whatever he wrote has been dismissed and shadowed by what he did, so the ideas within never got much of a debate.

[dredmorbius]

Notably, Bill Joy found them significant:

"Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" (2000)

<https://web.archive.org/web/20170801001546/https://www.wired...>

[Beijinger]

It has been a long time that I read his manifesto. While he has many correct conclusions, I don't remember him arguing in any way how he got them.

There are much better writers. E.g. Ugo Bardi, Gail Tverberg that have a skeptical outlook on our future.

[earthworldpsion]

I do not think Kaczynski offered a terrible amount beyond what Jacques Ellul wrote. He does have a fascinating story, and he contributed through his manifesto, at least, the idea of oversocialization which has been expanded on by the likes of Byung-Chul Han (indirect as it might be). The other point I can think of would be the introduction of whataboutists to right wing movements and the detriment it has, but I think that thought will occur in places with heavy-handed bureaucracies. I don’t think I had seen the statement expressed so bluntly though.

I found the manifesto interesting, but it wasn’t compelling beyond the few strokes of wisdom. In academia, you see exactly what he is talking about, especially nowadays.

[blackeyeblitzar]

I’m not familiar with the others you named - got anything from them you can point me to? I’m also not plugged into the “whataboutists” and didn’t understand the point with bureaucracies - could you please explain?

[earthworldpsion]

Ellul wrote “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” and “The Technological Society”. Both, I think, address a lot of what Kaczynski was addressing in Industrial Society and Its Future (ISaiF).

In saying whataboutists, I was referring to a section of ISaiF called, “The Danger of Leftism.” I was trying to avoid a direct callout to a political practice by saying this, but it may have obfuscated the point too much. Here, he talks about the derailing of discussion that happens when your space includes leftists. As I remember, he says this is due to the rabbit hole creation that happens in attempting to address issues pertaining to minorities. In this way, your discussion veers away from the point at hand,which is actually a part of the CIA guide to disrupting dissidents (get people to fight over definitions and what the purpose of conversations is).

The bureaucracy point is my own playfulness. I think a lot of people in governmental or academic circles have dealt with people who are more concerned with the rules at hand and the perception of following those rules than they are with the creation of good work. The section on oversocialization in ISaiF may clarify what I mean. It points at a class of people who are very, very concerned with the perception of others that is very common in the academic world.

Edit: I forgot to address Byung-Chul Han’s relation. He writes short books in the style of Baudrillard, in that, it is heavy on social criticism. Specifically, I am thinking of “In the Swarm” and its critique of group thought in the social media age.