4 ms·
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 onc
by 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 agoPlaying Devil's advocate, we could discuss the ideas using some other sources. Anarcho-primitivism is older than Kaczynski's writings.
- wybiral 9y agoEven 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 agoI'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?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoLet's say A had some theories, and said what they are, and went out and killed some people based on those theories. And let's say that B had some similar theories, and said what they are. Rejecting A's ideas because those ideas led A to murder is somewhat defensible. It's evidence that there is something deeply morally flawed in A's thinking. Rejecting B's ideas because they are similar to A's is shakier. B's ideas deserve a hearing on the merits. (Ideas have consequences, and A has shown what A thinks the consequences are. Those consequences can reasonably be considered part of the "merits" of A's ideas.)
- wybiral 9y agoI completely disagree with the murders and most of what he is saying here for that matter. But I also disagree with the idea that we can't constructively discuss what he was saying. Censoring the ideas seems even more dangerous to me. For instance, I'd rather that an impressionable person read the ideas in public where sane people can openly critique them than have them only presented on batshit conspiracy sites.