8 ms·

i flagged this because its essentially terrorist propaganda because of what the guy did. i dont know what the guidelines are regarding such things but i don't t

i flagged this because its essentially terrorist propaganda because of what the guy did. i dont know what the guidelines are regarding such things but i don't think this belongs in a civil place like this.

aluhut 9y ago
So his ideas could radicalize us here? Is this what you think? Like ISIS propaganda? He did math too. Do you want to ban math here also?
- timwaagh 9y ago
  terrorism is sort of like speading your ideas by inflicting violence to make headlines. i would not want such tactics to be rewarded in any way. i believe in arguing for your ideas without the use of violence to 'market' them. I would not like to endorse a math publication written by a terrorist. but in addition, this document explicitly references the violence he inflicted on his victim.
  - aluhut 9y ago
    Many people back then read his manifesto. However even then there was no wave of terror based on his core writings and the most radical ones are still popular on conspiracy boards. Still nobody is getting radicalized by it. This is not a conspiracy board here. People here would me the enemies of this guy and we all see that he was wrong now. So what are you afraid of?
    - timwaagh 9y ago
      maybe some moderator of such a site sees this and perhaps bans such content on his site as well. all we can do is set the right example.
      - aluhut 9y ago
        I wonder. Are you aware that such talk fuels those people?
  - _jal 9y ago
    I don't like this argument. Blindly attempting to suppress writings because of the actions of the author, if it worked, might serve to devalue violence as marketing, but it is never going to keep words from the true believers, who will just overvalue them because they're suppressed. It also damages our ability to discuss the complaints voiced. Like it or not, some ideas that in the past have been promoted via violence turned out to be correct. Finally, history is important. This, I hope, needs no explanation.
- michaelt 9y ago
  I believe the fear is giving attention to people who do things we don't like is a reward, creating bad incentives. Same reason suicide charities discourage newspapers from reporting the contents of suicide notes.
- josinalvo 9y ago
  The argument is that we should not reward terrorism or further incentivise it. If you want to discuss this "math" of yours, bring it from a source that does not amplify the signal by killing people.
  - josinalvo 9y ago
    > this "math" of yours (this is a joke, but the point is reasonable)
  - aluhut 9y ago
    I don't feel it amplified anything in me. How is it that you have such strong feelings about it? We also read excerpts of Mein Kampf at school. I did not have the feeling I needed to kill Jews afterwards. Maybe the text is not the problem here?
throwanem 9y ago
I don't think it is necessary for us to behave as though we fear ideas. Erroneous though some certainly are, I confide that we can recognize and say as much.
- timwaagh 9y ago
  its not about the ideas. i dont have a problem with his ideas, i have a problem with how he goes about spreading them. that's why we should not allow this.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    "How he goes about spreading them" - unsuccessfully? He's spent the last twenty-one years in prison. He will die there. That, and the pointless harm he did a few innocent people, are the whole extent of his legacy. I'm impressed to hear that you don't have a problem with his ideas. I certainly do! I went into some detail about that, not long ago: https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski Perhaps I have failed to take your meaning here. But the trouble with an idea is that you can't kill it by excluding it from what we please ourselves to regard as polite discourse. Kaczynski isn't the only radical anarchoprimitivist in the world. Don't you think it might be a good idea to give food for thought to the next one who might be thinking about blowing people up?
    - kyrre 9y ago
      kaczynski was succesful in spreading his ideas. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits/2013/03/22/the-best-thing-i-learned-at-sxsw-was-from-the-unabomber https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits/2013/03/22/the-best-th...
      - throwanem 9y ago
        Part of a philosopher's job is to take seriously ideas that no one else much does, and the modern breed tends to thrive on controversy because it shows they're being heard. I suspect that's a lot to do with why Skrbina uses Kaczynski as a hook on which to hang a fairly quotidian, if not to my mind misguided, opinion that our increasingly intimate relationship with technology poses a meaningful risk of deleterious effects too subtle to be obvious in the short or even intermediate term. I don't think it does much, to help his thesis gain traction, that he should argue it the way he seems to do. But that's his mistake to make, I suppose, and even he strongly disclaims the "blow shit up and kill people" part of Kaczynski's analysis - and that's the only part of his analysis which is genuinely original; Against His-Story, Against Leviathan, just off the top of my head, predates Kaczynski's publication by over a decade. So I'm not sure that we really can add one otherwise obscure adjunct professor to one otherwise forgettable NYT opinion columnist and end up with meaningful uptake of anything that Kaczynski actually had to contribute, rather than simply an early attempt to find in anarchoprimitivism what value may be there to synthesize with the culture in which we live. A subtle distinction, I concede - but, I maintain, a worthy one nonetheless.
petard 9y ago
every time somebody uses the word 'terrorist' a kitten dies
wybiral 9y ago
While I understand the intent of your comment, it's bothersome to think that we can't have a discussion about something purely because some murderer said it once. That aside, I think he seems to overly doubt the inevitability, which is to completely ignore the fact that if we didn't create these systems then someone else would. Even if you believe that they're dangerous or harmful (inherently), there's some game theory involved in not having created them in the same way as not having designed the h-bomb when we did. Because another potential world power will and that seems hard to dismiss.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Playing Devil's advocate, we could discuss the ideas using some other sources. Anarcho-primitivism is older than Kaczynski's writings.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    Even in nature you don't have the luxury of standing still. It's been arms race after arms race since the days of single-celled organisms and the ones who adapted are alive today.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I'm not here to defend Primitivism, but I think you should expect them to have considered that.
- lmm 9y ago
  > While I understand the intent of your comment, it's bothersome to think that we can't have a discussion about something purely because some murderer said it once. No, the article is specifically a letter written by a mass-murderer. The objection is not that the ideas are the same, it's that this is literally what the killer wrote.
  - arbitrage 9y ago
    > it's that this is literally what the killer wrote And? What's the objection to that?
tmnvix 9y ago
> ...its essentially terrorist propaganda because of what the guy did. Your argument is invalid. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with your conclusion.

aluhut 9y ago

So his ideas could radicalize us here? Is this what you think? Like ISIS propaganda? He did math too. Do you want to ban math here also?

timwaagh 9y ago
terrorism is sort of like speading your ideas by inflicting violence to make headlines. i would not want such tactics to be rewarded in any way. i believe in arguing for your ideas without the use of violence to 'market' them. I would not like to endorse a math publication written by a terrorist. but in addition, this document explicitly references the violence he inflicted on his victim.
- aluhut 9y ago
  Many people back then read his manifesto. However even then there was no wave of terror based on his core writings and the most radical ones are still popular on conspiracy boards. Still nobody is getting radicalized by it. This is not a conspiracy board here. People here would me the enemies of this guy and we all see that he was wrong now. So what are you afraid of?
  - timwaagh 9y ago
    maybe some moderator of such a site sees this and perhaps bans such content on his site as well. all we can do is set the right example.
    - aluhut 9y ago
      I wonder. Are you aware that such talk fuels those people?
- _jal 9y ago
  I don't like this argument. Blindly attempting to suppress writings because of the actions of the author, if it worked, might serve to devalue violence as marketing, but it is never going to keep words from the true believers, who will just overvalue them because they're suppressed. It also damages our ability to discuss the complaints voiced. Like it or not, some ideas that in the past have been promoted via violence turned out to be correct. Finally, history is important. This, I hope, needs no explanation.
michaelt 9y ago
I believe the fear is giving attention to people who do things we don't like is a reward, creating bad incentives. Same reason suicide charities discourage newspapers from reporting the contents of suicide notes.
josinalvo 9y ago
The argument is that we should not reward terrorism or further incentivise it. If you want to discuss this "math" of yours, bring it from a source that does not amplify the signal by killing people.
- josinalvo 9y ago
  > this "math" of yours (this is a joke, but the point is reasonable)
- aluhut 9y ago
  I don't feel it amplified anything in me. How is it that you have such strong feelings about it? We also read excerpts of Mein Kampf at school. I did not have the feeling I needed to kill Jews afterwards. Maybe the text is not the problem here?

throwanem 9y ago

I don't think it is necessary for us to behave as though we fear ideas. Erroneous though some certainly are, I confide that we can recognize and say as much.

timwaagh 9y ago
its not about the ideas. i dont have a problem with his ideas, i have a problem with how he goes about spreading them. that's why we should not allow this.
- throwanem 9y ago
  "How he goes about spreading them" - unsuccessfully? He's spent the last twenty-one years in prison. He will die there. That, and the pointless harm he did a few innocent people, are the whole extent of his legacy. I'm impressed to hear that you don't have a problem with his ideas. I certainly do! I went into some detail about that, not long ago: https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski https://aaron-m.com/2017/07/09/on-kaczynski Perhaps I have failed to take your meaning here. But the trouble with an idea is that you can't kill it by excluding it from what we please ourselves to regard as polite discourse. Kaczynski isn't the only radical anarchoprimitivist in the world. Don't you think it might be a good idea to give food for thought to the next one who might be thinking about blowing people up?
  - kyrre 9y ago
    kaczynski was succesful in spreading his ideas. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits/2013/03/22/the-best-thing-i-learned-at-sxsw-was-from-the-unabomber https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/bits/2013/03/22/the-best-th...
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Part of a philosopher's job is to take seriously ideas that no one else much does, and the modern breed tends to thrive on controversy because it shows they're being heard. I suspect that's a lot to do with why Skrbina uses Kaczynski as a hook on which to hang a fairly quotidian, if not to my mind misguided, opinion that our increasingly intimate relationship with technology poses a meaningful risk of deleterious effects too subtle to be obvious in the short or even intermediate term. I don't think it does much, to help his thesis gain traction, that he should argue it the way he seems to do. But that's his mistake to make, I suppose, and even he strongly disclaims the "blow shit up and kill people" part of Kaczynski's analysis - and that's the only part of his analysis which is genuinely original; Against His-Story, Against Leviathan, just off the top of my head, predates Kaczynski's publication by over a decade. So I'm not sure that we really can add one otherwise obscure adjunct professor to one otherwise forgettable NYT opinion columnist and end up with meaningful uptake of anything that Kaczynski actually had to contribute, rather than simply an early attempt to find in anarchoprimitivism what value may be there to synthesize with the culture in which we live. A subtle distinction, I concede - but, I maintain, a worthy one nonetheless.

petard 9y ago

every time somebody uses the word 'terrorist' a kitten dies

wybiral 9y ago

While I understand the intent of your comment, it's bothersome to think that we can't have a discussion about something purely because some murderer said it once. That aside, I think he seems to overly doubt the inevitability, which is to completely ignore the fact that if we didn't create these systems then someone else would. Even if you believe that they're dangerous or harmful (inherently), there's some game theory involved in not having created them in the same way as not having designed the h-bomb when we did. Because another potential world power will and that seems hard to dismiss.

icebraining 9y ago
Playing Devil's advocate, we could discuss the ideas using some other sources. Anarcho-primitivism is older than Kaczynski's writings.
- wybiral 9y ago
  Even in nature you don't have the luxury of standing still. It's been arms race after arms race since the days of single-celled organisms and the ones who adapted are alive today.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I'm not here to defend Primitivism, but I think you should expect them to have considered that.
lmm 9y ago
> While I understand the intent of your comment, it's bothersome to think that we can't have a discussion about something purely because some murderer said it once. No, the article is specifically a letter written by a mass-murderer. The objection is not that the ideas are the same, it's that this is literally what the killer wrote.
- arbitrage 9y ago
  > it's that this is literally what the killer wrote And? What's the objection to that?

tmnvix 9y ago

> ...its essentially terrorist propaganda because of what the guy did. Your argument is invalid. Of course, that doesn't mean I disagree with your conclusion.