4 ms·

He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't be r

He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't be reading it, regardless of its merits.

daenz 6y ago
Do you think you are doing your part to discourage future murderers from publishing manifestos? It's hard for me to follow the logic of how what you describe works.
- TomMarius 6y ago
  1) they declare that this is not okay and they won't be reading anything like it 2) people reading the comment will think "maybe this is not the way to make people read my stuff"
- orisho 6y ago
  While just not reading it likely has no effect, making this public post about it might dissuade others from reading and discourage manifesto publishing.
  - daenz 6y ago
    It seems like their energy is better spent educating themselves on the controversial material so that they can explain to people why they think the conclusions in it are wrong. FWIW, I'm actually made more curious when people discourage me from reading something, so they may want to rethink the actual impact of that strategy.
    - orisho 6y ago
      I'm not though. It had the intended effect on me. I don't believe what he has to say is so revolutionary that I'm missing much by not reading it, and I agree with the sentiment that I'm respecting the Unabomber's goals by reading it - so I just wont. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, the tricky part is execution. Fortunately, murder is usually an ineffective way to affect public policies.
- michaelt 6y ago
  If you pay attention to your pet every time it misbehaves, you wouldn't be surprised when it learns to misbehave whenever it wants your attention. Some people fear the same applies to mad bombers and school shooters and terrorists: If misbehaving gets you in the news, makes you famous and gets books written about you...
- bad-apple 6y ago
  You seem to have it backwards. The goal is to discourage future manifesto-publishers from murdering. Just as school shootings used to be a good way to get your face on TV, murder is a good way to market your manifesto. We can fix that.
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  It's not about discouraging future murderers from publishing manifestos, it's about discouraging future manifesto-writers from murdering. It's quite simple logic really. The less attention terrorists get, the less appealing terrorism becomes as a means to get attention. See also: "The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized." https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
prakhar897 6y ago
The guy literally mentions this in first paragraph. Obama, lenin, raegan etc everyone killed people. Does this mean you'll stop acknowledging their existence?
SisypheanLife 6y ago
He was one of the youngest professors ever at his University and was one who was experimented on by the CIA. There are some novelties here that exist other than him being a random school shooter.
- cm2187 6y ago
  So a murderer is OK as long as he is a good academic scholar.
arez 6y ago
you can buy "Mein Kampf" anytime if you want, I doubt you get anything useful out of it or become a mass murderer if you read it. If you ban books or thoughts or manifestos you end up being totalitarian you becoming the very thing you try to fight against
- cm2187 6y ago
  Hitler didn't kill 6 millions jews so people would read Mein Kampf.
  - arez 6y ago
    no, but he wrote down his ideologie
jonnypotty 6y ago
Perfect example of people thinking that the ideas they allow into their head will somehow affect the future of humanity. In a world lead by pr and marketing, we now see ourselves as extensions of this thought controlling manipulative system. It is socially responsible to evaluate your behaviour as something that will either encourage or discourage good behavior and thought in other people. I think it's an intellectually stunted way to think. You close it off because you've decided it's bad. I don't think he should have tried to kill people, he was mentally unwell, but are you saying there is no circumstance in which violence is necessary? Is the act of violence so abhorrent that it discounts his politics? Nelson Mandela was a 'terrorist'. You know the old saying, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Be careful you're not limiting what you think and feel based on a load of capitalist marketing rules.
- PJDK 6y ago
  Not the OP - but to my mind this is missing the point. It would be totally unfair to criticise a piece of anarcho primitivist writing by saying "I'm not reading this, this is what Ted Kaczynski believed". But Kaczynski murdered people to get his ideas read - I don't want that to be a way that political ideas make it into the mainstream. If the ideas are good enough they can stand on their own two feet - plenty of not unabombers have written similar stuff so why not have articles about them? Also I feel like the majority of political systems discourage letter bombing as a marketing technique - it's not unique to capitalism.
  - jonnypotty 6y ago
    The entire point is that he did have to kill people to get his message out and, ooops it changed the way we thought about technological culture and our impact on the world. Your argument that "why do they not have articles about them", well they do, but they didn't get their manifesto published in a national newspaper in full. You want to live in a world of goodies and baddies go ahead. I'm not saying that not wanting people to be blown up is uniquely capitalist. What I am saying is that people seeing the _value_ of their actions as whether they encourage or discourage good or bad behavior is very capitalist. It's also arrogant, self centred and intellectually moribund.

He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't be reading it, regardless of its merits.

daenz 6y ago

Do you think you are doing your part to discourage future murderers from publishing manifestos? It's hard for me to follow the logic of how what you describe works.

TomMarius 6y ago
1) they declare that this is not okay and they won't be reading anything like it 2) people reading the comment will think "maybe this is not the way to make people read my stuff"
orisho 6y ago
While just not reading it likely has no effect, making this public post about it might dissuade others from reading and discourage manifesto publishing.
- daenz 6y ago
  It seems like their energy is better spent educating themselves on the controversial material so that they can explain to people why they think the conclusions in it are wrong. FWIW, I'm actually made more curious when people discourage me from reading something, so they may want to rethink the actual impact of that strategy.
  - orisho 6y ago
    I'm not though. It had the intended effect on me. I don't believe what he has to say is so revolutionary that I'm missing much by not reading it, and I agree with the sentiment that I'm respecting the Unabomber's goals by reading it - so I just wont. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, the tricky part is execution. Fortunately, murder is usually an ineffective way to affect public policies.
michaelt 6y ago
If you pay attention to your pet every time it misbehaves, you wouldn't be surprised when it learns to misbehave whenever it wants your attention. Some people fear the same applies to mad bombers and school shooters and terrorists: If misbehaving gets you in the news, makes you famous and gets books written about you...
bad-apple 6y ago
You seem to have it backwards. The goal is to discourage future manifesto-publishers from murdering. Just as school shootings used to be a good way to get your face on TV, murder is a good way to market your manifesto. We can fix that.
emiliobumachar 6y ago
It's not about discouraging future murderers from publishing manifestos, it's about discouraging future manifesto-writers from murdering. It's quite simple logic really. The less attention terrorists get, the less appealing terrorism becomes as a means to get attention. See also: "The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized." https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_be_terrori.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...

prakhar897 6y ago

The guy literally mentions this in first paragraph. Obama, lenin, raegan etc everyone killed people. Does this mean you'll stop acknowledging their existence?

SisypheanLife 6y ago

He was one of the youngest professors ever at his University and was one who was experimented on by the CIA. There are some novelties here that exist other than him being a random school shooter.

cm2187 6y ago
So a murderer is OK as long as he is a good academic scholar.

arez 6y ago

you can buy "Mein Kampf" anytime if you want, I doubt you get anything useful out of it or become a mass murderer if you read it. If you ban books or thoughts or manifestos you end up being totalitarian you becoming the very thing you try to fight against

cm2187 6y ago
Hitler didn't kill 6 millions jews so people would read Mein Kampf.
- arez 6y ago
  no, but he wrote down his ideologie

jonnypotty 6y ago

Perfect example of people thinking that the ideas they allow into their head will somehow affect the future of humanity. In a world lead by pr and marketing, we now see ourselves as extensions of this thought controlling manipulative system. It is socially responsible to evaluate your behaviour as something that will either encourage or discourage good behavior and thought in other people. I think it's an intellectually stunted way to think. You close it off because you've decided it's bad. I don't think he should have tried to kill people, he was mentally unwell, but are you saying there is no circumstance in which violence is necessary? Is the act of violence so abhorrent that it discounts his politics? Nelson Mandela was a 'terrorist'. You know the old saying, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Be careful you're not limiting what you think and feel based on a load of capitalist marketing rules.

PJDK 6y ago
Not the OP - but to my mind this is missing the point. It would be totally unfair to criticise a piece of anarcho primitivist writing by saying "I'm not reading this, this is what Ted Kaczynski believed". But Kaczynski murdered people to get his ideas read - I don't want that to be a way that political ideas make it into the mainstream. If the ideas are good enough they can stand on their own two feet - plenty of not unabombers have written similar stuff so why not have articles about them? Also I feel like the majority of political systems discourage letter bombing as a marketing technique - it's not unique to capitalism.
- jonnypotty 6y ago
  The entire point is that he did have to kill people to get his message out and, ooops it changed the way we thought about technological culture and our impact on the world. Your argument that "why do they not have articles about them", well they do, but they didn't get their manifesto published in a national newspaper in full. You want to live in a world of goodies and baddies go ahead. I'm not saying that not wanting people to be blown up is uniquely capitalist. What I am saying is that people seeing the _value_ of their actions as whether they encourage or discourage good or bad behavior is very capitalist. It's also arrogant, self centred and intellectually moribund.