Ishkah OP wrote (edited )

He is very good about not directly advocating for illegal activities in a public space/manner.

Sorry but firstly that's not the case, quoting Zerzan:

I’m not averse to saying I think direct action is a good thing. Damage to property, not violence against people. Things in the streets, like in Seattle in 1999, really got people’s attention. The Earth Liberation Front, when they commit arson, it draws people’s attention to just how bad it’s getting and to take up arms – and I don’t mean against people. They’ve never injured anyone – and go after these targets. We literally mean direct action, and we’ve got friends in prison because of it.

Secondly why would that be good? I get exemplifying security culture, but some public advocates willing to justify illegal direct action is important I think to contextualize actions for different audiances.

The Ted talk was great and I'll have a think about how to re-word, so I really appreciate the suggestion. I think it's good for open-letters/public-debates to be a bit performative to garner audiance interest, but it's a good idea to try to incorporate some of the tools for how to have a good discussion in general.


Ishkah OP wrote

Hey all, I'm working on topic ideas for a podcast episode on the life of Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), so if you have any ideas or would like to talk about it in text or over voice, just let me know. You can also comment directly on the google doc.