5 ms·
He did less damage than a Harvard grad who went on to run a hedge fund, or went on to work in private equity, or work for McKinsey, or become a lobbyist. Where
by ok123456 3y ago
He did less damage than a Harvard grad who went on to run a hedge fund, or went on to work in private equity, or work for McKinsey, or become a lobbyist.
Where's the detailed list of victims of globalization and finance?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- infamouscow 3y agoOr invading another country and killing somewhere on the order of 100K-1M innocent civilians. If we're going to make a rank order list of genocidal maniacs, Ted Kaczynski isn't anywhere near the top.
- wellthisisgreat 3y agothat's some rich whataboutism
- ok123456 3y agoIt's not "whataboutism." It's proportionality and universality.
- infamouscow 3y agoWhataboutism is slang for not having a coherent argument.
- anm89 3y agoYou can always tell weak thinkers when they need to throw out pre-labeled idea placeholders instead of making their point
- petsfed 3y agoIn the context of "having a harvard degree implies a certain amount of skill and capability of to improve the world", I think its fair to honestly look at who he's being held up to in comparison. There a lot people in the world who, if you asked them who was the most dangerous person to graduate from Harvard, they'd pick George W. Bush over some guy who killed 3 and injured not quite 2 dozen. Getting into or graduating from Harvard as an undergrad doesn't mean much. Granted, Kaczynski didn't buy his way in, but the comment as written doesn't differentiate between some rich kid buying their way in and some genius earning their way in.
- ok123456 3y agoThe introduction of the SAT kept Jeb from going there.
- wellthisisgreat 3y agoI am not defending Bush (a Yale grad, but that's beside the point) and the like. Unabomber was a psychopath who purposefully murdered people. "he did less damage" - "then a lobbyist or McKinsey" is a wild statement. He was a purposeful murderer. Trying to lump McKinsey consultants and politicians (horrible people, most of them, I am sure) with a serial killer is normalizing murder. Murder is a line that, I imagine, is drawn in concrete for any person who expects to be welcome in the modern society. I will take my chances in being the subject to damage done by any randomly picked lobbyist vs Unabomber. Won't you? What is going on with HN if this is the kind of discourse that's getting upvoted and approved.
- ok123456 3y agoWhich is worse for the world: an lone sociopath who does a short spree of destructive acts, or a ruling class of organized psychopaths with all the levers of power with the ability to use the national security state to kill anything that gets in their way? I think half a million dead Iraqis would say the latter.
- wellthisisgreat 3y agoAfter seeing you label Unabomber a “sociopath” and corrupt politicians “psychopaths”, I believe an informed discussion is not to be expected. Best of luck.
- ok123456 3y agono. I'm sorry this makes you feel bad.
- petsfed 3y agoGeorge H.W. Bush went to Yale. His son, George W. Bush went to Harvard. I'm not trying to excuse, or minimize, Kaczynski's crimes. I am asking you to understand that in the case of revolutionaries and political leaders, the difference between heroes and terrorists is ultimately decided by the people of the future. It is very easy to see serial killers and bomb makers as individually evil, because its a very personal sort of violence, and the motivations are expressed and enacted on a very personal level. But how do you deal with more indirect motivations and indirect violence? Was Churchill's inaction during the Bengal famine murder? What about all the collateral damage during Bush's tenure with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is Barack Obama a murderer for ordering the death of Anwar Al-Awlaki? Or was it the drone operator who followed the order? This is to say nothing of the original comment, that Kaczynski did less damage than the average Harvard grad (depicted as someone in finances. The extent to which working in finances causes damage and death is, I think, a lot less direct than even the damage done by a head of state enacting national policy). I don't think Kaczynski did the right thing, or that his underlying motivations were even coherent, let alone morally correct. Do not misunderstand me. But if we're stack-ranking history's greatest monsters (and Harvard graduates), actual effectiveness counts at least as much as intent.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoKill ten people and you're a serial killer. Kill ten million and you're a politician.
- rc5150 3y agoKill em all... YOU'RE A GOD! (Megadeth - Captive Honour, by way of Jean Rostand)
- soupfordummies 3y agoFor the sake of argument, 100% agreed. However, that's still irrelevant and does nothing to alleviate the fact that he killed many innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.
- anm89 3y agoWho says that? Parent's talking to toddlers? Surely no one making decisions of consequence in our world. They certainly prefer tit for tat.
- dang 3y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- soupfordummies 3y agoI personally say that to myself as I make decisions in our world. My path-of-least-resistance monkey brain certainly prefers tit-for-tat also, but I don't think that's a good way to be. I fail at this often though of course