5 ms·

Blowing people up got Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology manifesto printed in the NYTimes. Even if got through to one person I bet he feels like it was worth it.

Blowing people up got Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology manifesto printed in the NYTimes. Even if got through to one person I bet he feels like it was worth it. It's not something to admit in polite company but violence is a great way to start a conversation.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's correct though.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  What is the definition of "correct" in this context that we can all agree to?
  - themacguffinman 9y ago
    Morally correct?
    - trophycase 9y ago
      What if you feel that society is morally bankrupt and that violence is the only way to fix it?
    - boomlinde 9y ago
      "Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share? Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do. Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what is generally considered normal and socially acceptable, whose ill deeds are consistent and true to their moral principles.
      - themacguffinman 9y ago
        Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.
        boomlinde 9y ago
        It's mostly a semantic argument. I'm arguing against using "correct" in a context where correctness evidently depends on morality, which is individual enough that this kind of person exists and thrives. That nullifies the whole basis of the argument that "There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship." I'm not sure that it was meant as an argument. Maybe it's just a cheap way to score points among "most people here", because it's rather pointless as an argument regardless of its validity. Also, I assume that by this country you mean the U.S., where killing people at least partly to draw attention (for the purpose of general deterrence) is practiced by the justice system. I bet you'll find a lot more people in this crowd that agree with this on the basis of their morals. I know people who believe one thing but will at least briefly change their mind learning of some particularly heinous crime or some particularly tragic wrongful conviction. Correct/incorrect isn't really a scale, so which would pick for something a little more polarized like this?
    - SCHiM 9y ago
      Big companies are morality load balancers. Technically a CEO is morally responsible for what their company does, but this does not truly feel right either. The example scenario goes like this: The shareholders decide that more money must be made The CEO decides that more money will be made by obtaining more wood. The hows and whys are kept vague at this stage. Nothing concrete will be put on paper. Upper management decides that resource acquisition will be guided by a study on the various pros and cons of chopping what wood where. The study confirms that we the best place to get wood is the amazon rain forest. Middle management receives the plans and guidelines from on high. Slowly the moral responsibility is distributed through the ranks. Until, years later, when some pollution case comes to light the question is asked: who to blame? The workers? The results of an objective study? The incentives set by shareholders and a cutthroat market for wood? Very convenient.

toomanybeersies 9y ago

Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's correct though.

boomlinde 9y ago
What is the definition of "correct" in this context that we can all agree to?
- themacguffinman 9y ago
  Morally correct?
  - trophycase 9y ago
    What if you feel that society is morally bankrupt and that violence is the only way to fix it?
  - boomlinde 9y ago
    "Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share? Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do. Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what is generally considered normal and socially acceptable, whose ill deeds are consistent and true to their moral principles.
    - themacguffinman 9y ago
      Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.
      - boomlinde 9y ago
        It's mostly a semantic argument. I'm arguing against using "correct" in a context where correctness evidently depends on morality, which is individual enough that this kind of person exists and thrives. That nullifies the whole basis of the argument that "There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship." I'm not sure that it was meant as an argument. Maybe it's just a cheap way to score points among "most people here", because it's rather pointless as an argument regardless of its validity. Also, I assume that by this country you mean the U.S., where killing people at least partly to draw attention (for the purpose of general deterrence) is practiced by the justice system. I bet you'll find a lot more people in this crowd that agree with this on the basis of their morals. I know people who believe one thing but will at least briefly change their mind learning of some particularly heinous crime or some particularly tragic wrongful conviction. Correct/incorrect isn't really a scale, so which would pick for something a little more polarized like this?
  - SCHiM 9y ago
    Big companies are morality load balancers. Technically a CEO is morally responsible for what their company does, but this does not truly feel right either. The example scenario goes like this: The shareholders decide that more money must be made The CEO decides that more money will be made by obtaining more wood. The hows and whys are kept vague at this stage. Nothing concrete will be put on paper. Upper management decides that resource acquisition will be guided by a study on the various pros and cons of chopping what wood where. The study confirms that we the best place to get wood is the amazon rain forest. Middle management receives the plans and guidelines from on high. Slowly the moral responsibility is distributed through the ranks. Until, years later, when some pollution case comes to light the question is asked: who to blame? The workers? The results of an objective study? The incentives set by shareholders and a cutthroat market for wood? Very convenient.