> It's a weakening of Kaczynski's argument to say it's about activists not caring about collateral. Maybe, but what you say here isn't supported by the bit you

> It's a weakening of Kaczynski's argument to say it's about activists not caring about collateral. Maybe, but what you say here isn't supported by the bit you quoted. That bit actually seemed completely level headed and well written. He defined his terms (leftist) and admitted it's a sloppy term, and then he wrote something I feel is true about most political ideologues - that they care more about their arguments and winning than the correctness of the arguments or value of their opinions. > He absolutely mixes in there insinuations that this is all by some secret design. Again, maybe in the overall manifesto, but not there. In the quote provided he just says "Xs works for the goals of X, even if their message is 'Save the Ys'" That's not hard to believe, it's something we all need to try to avoid in our own thinking. > ungodly amounts of paper writing about the motives of the leftist. :D Have you ever read what leftists themselves write? You could fill libraries just with analyses of Marx. I think the scary thing is that Ted is very well read and could be writing for the New Yorker ... and he justifies violence. But not because he's the only one doing so, he's just the one who decided to take it into his own hands instead of the acceptable ways to call for violence - to advocate using our military to do it, or hoping that someone 'punches' them for 'being a nazi'. He's scary because he disproves the narrative of a barely literate, ignorant, conservative-adjacent, god-fearing, terrorist who hates us because of our freedoms, or whatever. He is us, one of the best of us at one time, and we can be vicious.