Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

shanc wrote (edited )

I liked the bit where he sabotaged the logging equipment. I didn't like the bit where he maimed the receptionists

11

ego_mutt wrote

Bad methods, inconsistent ideology. Not a fan.

7

Basil wrote

One of my friends has mentioned him a few times, saying "I agree with his message, I disagree with his methods"

I'm not an an-prim, so I disagree with his message as well, and agree more with his methods, though those still aren't as good.

6

ziq wrote

He's not an anprim either, he's a Maoist.

8

[deleted] wrote

7

[deleted] wrote

−1

shanc wrote

How many people do you think read beyond the first paragraph? And how many people do you think read it without absolute contempt for the writer and his writing? He'd already blinded people by that point. All in all it was terrible praxis and imo he seriously hurt green activism

2

ziq wrote

Read his most recent stuff or you won't have a good grasp on his politics. He's a Maoist.

5

Fatcocklongcock wrote

Bad theory, bad praxis. He’s still quite stannable, however, and I rocked his flair on the old chapotraphouse over on reddit.

4

ploopt wrote

I don't know that there's anything interesting I could say about what he did, but I think it's worth looking into the specific focus of his ire, which was the emerging field of cybernetics. The Net - The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet is a great documentary that explores the historical forces that led to the creation of the Unabomber. Cybernetics is a recurring theme in Adam Curtis' work as well, and the second part of his film series All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is worth checking out as well. Looking back from this point in history, I think it's safe to say that Kaczynski had some incredible foresight.

I'll try and keep the tinfoil hat off of my head, but I think it's worth mentioning that he was almost certainly a subject of the CIA's MKUltra mind control program. This is likely an important part of his story, but when we venture into these topics it's impossible to distinguish the signal from the noise.

3

trappingskinless wrote

he's real funny to post about but not much else

some good ideas but you gotta sift through the shit for it

2

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote

anti-humanism is stupid

0

[deleted] wrote

2

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote (edited )

Yeah that's a real rich accusation coming from an actual rapist

−4

[deleted] wrote

4

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote

I'm frankly surprised that you don't remember that time you personally, intentionally caused an 8 car pileup on the highway and walked away laughing, but I suppose such things are normal to a monster such as yourself.

−2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote

I've changed my mind, Kaczynski was right, anti-humanism is good, and the internet, which is a technology for helping people cope with their own powerlessness by setting up little peoples' courts and prosecuting others for making a joke they don't get, was a crime.

−2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

[deleted] wrote

1

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote

Gladly.

The joke is, some Goofus comes up and says something along the lines of "how can you like the podcast 'chapo trap house'? do you just really like laughing at rape and misogyny?"

Now, this is obviously a leading question, a cop-brained trick of accusing someone of something outrageously awful based on a false premise (in this case the premise is that the podcast is based on laughing at rape and misogyny), with the expectation that accused will deny the accusation, but accept the premise.

The joke is that I subvert this expectation by ironically accepting both the accusation (which is designed to be unacceptable) and the premise (which is false, but which the petty officer does not want questioned). Essentially, instead of apologizing for something someone else imagined, I twist the trick around and proudly proclaim my guilt.

Hope that helped!

1

[deleted] wrote

0

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote (edited )

yes, if that were the case, it would be. but it's not. glad we cleared that up and we can all move on with our lives instead of, for example, spamming someone over and over with the same comment in unrelated threads.

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

[deleted] wrote

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote (edited )

the logic of capitalism and patriarchy isn't "vulgarity" you simpleton. norms of civility have historically been used by the ruling class to control and police the working class, and by men to police women. Go be a goddamn tradcath if you love guilt and propriety so much.

christ this is why i'm flippant with you idiots. I don't care about whatever lib shit you read on Vox, and I'm not obligated to explain in detail everything that anyone vaguely associated with a podcast I enjoy has said to children. Get a hobby. Join an org. Burn down a courthouse. Do anything with your time other than playing police in online comments sections.

Edit: lmao you literally moderate the egoism forum how are you going to get mad at vulgarity you fucking servile coward

0

[deleted] wrote

0

HumanBehaviorByBjork wrote

"Don't say swears or hurt anyone's feelings" -St. Stirner the Pious

0

[deleted] wrote

1

[deleted] wrote

0

[deleted] wrote

2

Hhhhhhhhhhh wrote

People with privilege will never understand what it’s like to live in a world where rape is an everpresent threat. To them it’s so foreign that it becomes laughable, the lack of empathy is disturibing, but it’s created by design.

3

[deleted] wrote

−3

Hhhhhhhhhhh wrote (edited )

What? I just made an account here because somebody linked it in a Discord chatroom. I was trying to agree with you.

6