5 ms·

I don't know much about the Unabomber's victims. Where can I read about your friend's dad?

searealist 3y ago
There are only 3 victims to narrow down. edit: Only one of 3 victims was killed in his home: > In 1994, Burson-Marsteller executive Thomas J. Mosser was killed after opening a mail bomb sent to his home in New Jersey. In a letter to The New York Times, Kaczynski wrote he had sent the bomb because of Mosser's work repairing the public image of Exxon after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - californiadreem 3y ago
    They did PR for Union Carbide following Bhopal, so not hypothetical: "Considered the world's worst industrial disaster, over 500,000 people in the small towns around the plant were exposed to the highly toxic gas methyl isocyanate (MIC). Estimates vary on the death toll, with the official number of immediate deaths being 2,259. In 2008, the Government of Madhya Pradesh paid compensation to the family members of 3,787 victims killed in the gas release, and to 574,366 injured victims. A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases."
  - searealist 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    Hey, what about all of the people driving cars that buy the products from those oil giants? Why not just go open season on all of humanity?
    - salawat 3y ago
      There is a consolidation of culpability in the industrial of corporate actor because it is they and they alone who make the decisions they do. People will buy whatever is made. "The customers made me do it" has always been a misdirection, and arguably a straight up fallacy. Executives lay the road for what gets made. Not once has the public said "Hey, poison our air/water/lungs".
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Is that a real question? The answer is very obvious. Those people are a million times less culpable. (Yes, I know it's sarcastic. But sarcasm still needs to make sense to be effective. You can't say the equivalent of "that logic leads to X very bad thing" if you get the logic wrong.)
      - williamcotton 3y ago
        The logic is really simple: someone can come up with almost any reason to justify murder if they believe themselves solely capable of such judgment. If someone recognizes the failings of every human then they are less prone to pass judgment. Did Ted K not feel justified in his actions? Did he not find his own murderous actions acceptable? Why would he do these things if he didn’t think he was devoid of the sin he saw in his targets?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > The logic is really simple: someone can come up with almost any reason to justify murder if they believe themselves solely capable of such judgment. I think if you do a survey you'll find lots of people agreeing that major oil executives and PR should be judged harshly. Not murder, but definitely being judged as bad in a way that everyday people pass. I don't think your argument works at all. Harshly judging some people is not even close to harshly judging almost everyone. The former does not beget the latter. > If someone recognizes the failings of every human then they are less prone to pass judgment. Less, sure, but these are pretty egregious cases. > Did Ted K not feel justified in his actions? Did he not find his own murderous actions acceptable? Why would he do these things if he didn’t think he was devoid of the sin he saw in his targets? You definitely don't have to think you're free of sin to target sinners.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Vigilantism isn't justice. There was no trial or finding of guilt or responsibility before the 'accused' were attacked. While I'd like executives to be more personally liable, the answer to stopping the corruption is judicial, legislative, and/or executive reform.
dpflan 3y ago
This Netflix documentary on the Unabomber was pretty interesting; there are other sources I'm sure, but this seemed good. His participation in a multi-year Harvard psychology study was a fascinating facet to the story and his development. Unabomber: In His Own Words https://www.netflix.com/title/81002216 https://www.netflix.com/title/81002216
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  > His participation in a multi-year Harvard psychology study was a fascinating facet to the story and his development. There's an angle where this whole tragedy is just blowback from MK ULTRA.
  - frankfrankfrank 3y ago
    There’s an interesting book called Poisoner in Chief. I’m just not sure if it’s not an attempt to control/smoke and mirror the narrative.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
HL33tibCe7 3y ago
Wikipedia?

There are only 3 victims to narrow down. edit: Only one of 3 victims was killed in his home: > In 1994, Burson-Marsteller executive Thomas J. Mosser was killed after opening a mail bomb sent to his home in New Jersey. In a letter to The New York Times, Kaczynski wrote he had sent the bomb because of Mosser's work repairing the public image of Exxon after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

4gotunameagain 3y ago
[flagged]
- californiadreem 3y ago
  They did PR for Union Carbide following Bhopal, so not hypothetical: "Considered the world's worst industrial disaster, over 500,000 people in the small towns around the plant were exposed to the highly toxic gas methyl isocyanate (MIC). Estimates vary on the death toll, with the official number of immediate deaths being 2,259. In 2008, the Government of Madhya Pradesh paid compensation to the family members of 3,787 victims killed in the gas release, and to 574,366 injured victims. A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries. Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases."
- searealist 3y ago
  [flagged]
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Hey, what about all of the people driving cars that buy the products from those oil giants? Why not just go open season on all of humanity?
  - salawat 3y ago
    There is a consolidation of culpability in the industrial of corporate actor because it is they and they alone who make the decisions they do. People will buy whatever is made. "The customers made me do it" has always been a misdirection, and arguably a straight up fallacy. Executives lay the road for what gets made. Not once has the public said "Hey, poison our air/water/lungs".
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Is that a real question? The answer is very obvious. Those people are a million times less culpable. (Yes, I know it's sarcastic. But sarcasm still needs to make sense to be effective. You can't say the equivalent of "that logic leads to X very bad thing" if you get the logic wrong.)
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      The logic is really simple: someone can come up with almost any reason to justify murder if they believe themselves solely capable of such judgment. If someone recognizes the failings of every human then they are less prone to pass judgment. Did Ted K not feel justified in his actions? Did he not find his own murderous actions acceptable? Why would he do these things if he didn’t think he was devoid of the sin he saw in his targets?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > The logic is really simple: someone can come up with almost any reason to justify murder if they believe themselves solely capable of such judgment. I think if you do a survey you'll find lots of people agreeing that major oil executives and PR should be judged harshly. Not murder, but definitely being judged as bad in a way that everyday people pass. I don't think your argument works at all. Harshly judging some people is not even close to harshly judging almost everyone. The former does not beget the latter. > If someone recognizes the failings of every human then they are less prone to pass judgment. Less, sure, but these are pretty egregious cases. > Did Ted K not feel justified in his actions? Did he not find his own murderous actions acceptable? Why would he do these things if he didn’t think he was devoid of the sin he saw in his targets? You definitely don't have to think you're free of sin to target sinners.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Vigilantism isn't justice. There was no trial or finding of guilt or responsibility before the 'accused' were attacked. While I'd like executives to be more personally liable, the answer to stopping the corruption is judicial, legislative, and/or executive reform.

dpflan 3y ago

This Netflix documentary on the Unabomber was pretty interesting; there are other sources I'm sure, but this seemed good. His participation in a multi-year Harvard psychology study was a fascinating facet to the story and his development. Unabomber: In His Own Words https://www.netflix.com/title/81002216 https://www.netflix.com/title/81002216

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
> His participation in a multi-year Harvard psychology study was a fascinating facet to the story and his development. There's an angle where this whole tragedy is just blowback from MK ULTRA.
- frankfrankfrank 3y ago
  There’s an interesting book called Poisoner in Chief. I’m just not sure if it’s not an attempt to control/smoke and mirror the narrative.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

HL33tibCe7 3y ago

Wikipedia?