3 ms·

Our world is just fundamentally different from the one where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very

Our world is just fundamentally different from the one where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto. If he was active today, he’d just post it on YouTube and gather millions of views. If YouTube gets squeamish about the violence, move to Parler. It was easy to guarantee freedom of speech to everyone when people like Ted no means of actually broadcasting their ideas without being gatekeeped by newspaper editors. Our world is different now. It saddens me to say this but maybe our principles have to adapt too.

NigroqueSim 6y ago
There was never world where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Hell, it used to the christian right that was one pushing censorship.
sterlind 6y ago
Kaszynski could have published a book. If none of the major publishers would have carried it, be could find an alternative publisher, or even self-publish. If it weren't sold in stores, it could have been photocopied. Remember that samizdat existed in the Soviet Union without requiring terrorism to publish. No, he wanted eyeballs, and the best way to get those was to mail bombs. He wanted to terrify people into listening to him. His ideas weren't palatable on their own so he took a shortcut paid in human lives.
yurielt 6y ago
Well at teh end of the day the guy was right if anything you are not making your case properly, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia and maybe maybe if more people though like him, instead of licking Jeff Bezzos boot, then we would not have people mpeeing in bottles to make him and the technocrats richer by the second. They werent strange ideas, they are a crude reality that we have seen deployed ever since.
watwut 6y ago
> Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures So like, Ted Kaczynski was basically victim and world owned him millions of views? And when Ted Kaczynski cant get those millions of views, he "has to resort" to killing people? And if Ted Kaczynski had youtube channel and the channel would be ignored, would he still be entitled to kill people to get more views?
- 1000units 6y ago
  Violence should always be a last resort. The idea is to give people other options so they never feel the need to go there. What are you proposing?
  - watwut 6y ago
    The violence was his only option to be know by many people. Wanting to be know by many people is not valid use of violence. That is what I propose. If you cant convince people to follow you in your community and then enlarge it like any other political operatives in the same period did, then you accept that you failed to find followers. Bombing is not valid option. I am saying that Ted Kaczynski had no option other then violence complete nonsense.
    - 1000units 6y ago
      This reply is incoherent. Uttering "X is invalid" doesn't do anything about X. I encourage you to consider more effective solutions.
      - watwut 6y ago
        1.) Imprison Ted Kaczynski forever. 2.) When people like you try to frame his bombing as result of "not having other options", point out that such reasoning is illogical and entitled.
        6y ago
eternalban 6y ago
> He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto. I remember this. The things people will believe :) The idea that the two premiere newspapers carried in full, with great fanfare, the manifesto because of a few letter bombs is laughable. ("We don't negotiate with terrorists" was oddly a running theme back then, but no one ever accused the American public of being incapable of tolerationg gross cognitive dissonance. We're exceptionally good at it.) The manifesto articulates a principalist position against technology that ultimately suggests complete deindustrialization as "solution" to unchecked integration of technology in human societies. This absurd non-solution, delivered via a "madman", is the precise reason it was broadcast to a bewildered world.

NigroqueSim 6y ago

There was never world where absolute freedom of speech could be guaranteed. Hell, it used to the christian right that was one pushing censorship.

sterlind 6y ago

Kaszynski could have published a book. If none of the major publishers would have carried it, be could find an alternative publisher, or even self-publish. If it weren't sold in stores, it could have been photocopied. Remember that samizdat existed in the Soviet Union without requiring terrorism to publish. No, he wanted eyeballs, and the best way to get those was to mail bombs. He wanted to terrify people into listening to him. His ideas weren't palatable on their own so he took a shortcut paid in human lives.

yurielt 6y ago

Well at teh end of the day the guy was right if anything you are not making your case properly, we live in a cyberpunk dystopia and maybe maybe if more people though like him, instead of licking Jeff Bezzos boot, then we would not have people mpeeing in bottles to make him and the technocrats richer by the second. They werent strange ideas, they are a crude reality that we have seen deployed ever since.

watwut 6y ago

> Look at Ted Kaczynski, a terrorist with some very strange ideas. Although he had freedom of speech, he had no means to get his ideas out in front of more people. He had to resort to extreme measures So like, Ted Kaczynski was basically victim and world owned him millions of views? And when Ted Kaczynski cant get those millions of views, he "has to resort" to killing people? And if Ted Kaczynski had youtube channel and the channel would be ignored, would he still be entitled to kill people to get more views?

1000units 6y ago
Violence should always be a last resort. The idea is to give people other options so they never feel the need to go there. What are you proposing?
- watwut 6y ago
  The violence was his only option to be know by many people. Wanting to be know by many people is not valid use of violence. That is what I propose. If you cant convince people to follow you in your community and then enlarge it like any other political operatives in the same period did, then you accept that you failed to find followers. Bombing is not valid option. I am saying that Ted Kaczynski had no option other then violence complete nonsense.
  - 1000units 6y ago
    This reply is incoherent. Uttering "X is invalid" doesn't do anything about X. I encourage you to consider more effective solutions.
    - watwut 6y ago
      1.) Imprison Ted Kaczynski forever. 2.) When people like you try to frame his bombing as result of "not having other options", point out that such reasoning is illogical and entitled.
      - 6y ago

eternalban 6y ago

> He had to resort to extreme measures, like a bombing campaign to blackmail newspapers into printing his manifesto. I remember this. The things people will believe :) The idea that the two premiere newspapers carried in full, with great fanfare, the manifesto because of a few letter bombs is laughable. ("We don't negotiate with terrorists" was oddly a running theme back then, but no one ever accused the American public of being incapable of tolerationg gross cognitive dissonance. We're exceptionally good at it.) The manifesto articulates a principalist position against technology that ultimately suggests complete deindustrialization as "solution" to unchecked integration of technology in human societies. This absurd non-solution, delivered via a "madman", is the precise reason it was broadcast to a bewildered world.