7 ms·

His Goodreads comment on Ted Kacyzinski's book (better known for other work). https://i.redd.it/j9n3oplojv5e1.jpeg https://i.redd.it/j9n3oplojv5e1.jpeg

JKCalhoun 2y ago
More or less lays out his motive right there. I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.
- xyst 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - cagedcrickets 2y ago
    [dead]
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >The USA re-elected the man which basically encouraged the January 6th insurrection and has been suggesting vengeance for a long time now. On top of that, he's going to pardon everyone convicted for that insurrection, and wants to attack the Jan 6 committee somehow.
  - energy123 2y ago
    Take a moment to refresh your memory of the Pol Pot regime. If half the population aren't literally getting bludgeoned to death in the streets, remember it can get so, so much worse, so tread carefully with accelerationist sentiments.
    - hughesjj 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - someothherguyy 2y ago
        Can you elaborate on your hypothetical doomsday scenario here?
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        A low trust society won, for reasons that have very little to do with accelerationism.
  - jwarden 2y ago
    This is still a very civil society, but these hysterical cries to abandon civility aren’t helping.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Eextra953 2y ago
    I feel like I've ripped off the bandaid for a few weeks now and I'm left with a 'now what?' feeling. I'm stuck trying to think of ways we can bring the temperature down and bring us back to being a civil society.
- diob 2y ago
  Part of the reason we established courts was to avoid angry mobs dispensing justice, but we've let the courts become captured to a large extent. If you don't allow folks to seek justice in the courtroom, they'll inevitably return to "the jungle" so to speak. It's our job as participants in society to do our best to avoid that, but we have to make changes. We can't be idle and wring our hands saying "it can't be helped" or "it's not illegal". We have to change things so that folks will be held accountable. If we don't, this sort of thing is inevitable.
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - diob 2y ago
      My comment wasn’t about political capture, but about the capture of the courts by the wealthy class. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. The reality is that the courts have long struggled to hold wealthy and white-collar criminals accountable—unless, of course, their actions harm other wealthy individuals, in which case the system can sometimes swing into action. This issue isn't unique to the United States either; it’s a broader problem where the justice system often fails to address the crimes of the privileged while disproportionately impacting lower-income communities.
      - monero-xmr 2y ago
        I’d be open to ideas of reform. But so often the hot-takes I read online about “THE COURTS ARE RIGGED!1!1!” is simply one of disliking the ideological composition
      - tines 2y ago
        Isn't it the legislative branch that is captured, rather than the judicial? I don't see the courts failing to uphold the law (save for the supreme court which fails to uphold the Constitution, but that doesn't weigh on the everyday person's life much, as we saw through the elections). Insurance companies (mostly) don't actually break the law. It's the legislators that continue to fail to address our problems, and who get paid to look the other way while the working class is looted.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Violence is very effective. The authorities use it to subjugate the population and the American military uses the threat of violence and the action of actual violence to keep the United States the way it is. Except when it is used by governments, it is often called defense and when it is used by the police it is often called 'keeping the peace'. Violence as a tool for revolution is quite effective -- only pacifism is strongly ingrained in us to make us "good citizens".
  - njtransit 2y ago
    Violence certainly can be effective, but also not. Everything is situational. See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Whether or not violence makes sense likely depends on how strong you and your friends are.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      True. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Obviously, in order for it to be effective, you need a good strategy.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Some believe King was successful in part because of the threat of violence from alternative groups like the Black Panthers.
      - hughesjj 2y ago
        King was originally for violent protest until Bayard Rustin convinced him of nonviolent protest
        sitkack 2y ago
        This is also why the state apparatus like it incite violence in the opposition, this gives them authority to respond with violence. Nonviolent protest and organizing is more dangerous because it could quickly become a populist movement. A small group of people incited into violence, is already fringe and can be quickly suppressed.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Yet, violence is constantly used by governments and countries. If it is not effective why are the only surviving countries the ones who which have been willing to use violence?
  - pokepim 2y ago
    [dead]
- tines 2y ago
  > I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse. This is a pretty shallow opinion imo. The government operates on violence. America was founded in a violent revolution. The question people are asking isn't about whether violence has its place (it does); it's about how bad things have to get before you stop considering your government to have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, and people can start justly using violence themselves.
  - atlintots 2y ago
    "Non-violence is a very non-functional approach in a society that's based entirely on organized force and violence."
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Non-violent economic power is an extremely powerful tool within systems that restrict the use of force. If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days. The allure of violence is that people mistakenly think that they make change without support, when in reality, they are usually just creating effects, not the change that they want. Shooting a school or rioting has a lot of effects, but they almost never make the desired change.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
        If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days. This might be more persuasive if you supplied some examples.
        noisy_boy 2y ago
        > If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something Huge ask right at the beginning. If that is met, there are several examples such as The Velvet Revolution, Iceland's Financial Crisis Protest, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Philippine People Power Revolution (1986) etc.
- booleandilemma 2y ago
  Tell that to the Syrian rebels.
  - maeil 2y ago
    This is a great one. There were plenty of nonviolent protests in Syria throughout the years. They were executed and imprisoned without accomplishing a single thing.
- maeil 2y ago
  People act based on incentives and disincentives. As of 2024, there are big incentives to cause great damage to society at large for pure personal gain in a manner like this CEO, with no disincentives. This brings back a potential disincentive, and is what has been incredibly sorely needed. The French revolution is often brought up here as a case that is supposed to show that this kind of violence leads to horrific outcomes. This is ironic as on the whole, its results were fantastic. Reason being that it didn't just affect France - all over Europe, the monarchies were suddenly much more willing to restrain their power and care a lot more about the peasants. This is exactly what is needed. This doesn't have to happen to every similar CEO to have an incredibly positive effect.
oliv__ 2y ago
Only four stars though...
ks2048 2y ago
Final sentence is telling (among others): "Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators. Although I'm not sure what "predators" means here. Don't predators use violence?
- relaxing 2y ago
  Yes. They say it because they want to be the sole wielders of violence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- fshr 2y ago
  My guess is he was referring to financial predators. Greed and lust rather than wrath.
  - tines 2y ago
    No, he's saying that predators tell their prey not to fight back.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tines 2y ago
        I don't think this is true. How many popular movies are war movies where the heroes are most certainly not pacifists? Even the movie starring a real-life pacifist (Hacksaw Ridge) is about how he, too, fit into the war machine.
        vouaobrasil 2y ago
        First, I meant pacifism is promoted as the only recourse for the general citizen, not for the government. Of course, war movies promote the acceptability of violence by the state. Two totally separate phenomena. The state promotes violence by the state, and being docile for the citizen.
jmyeet 2y ago
Personally, I don't put a lot of weight on that. Particularly for people who are terminally online, the Unabomber manifesto is kinda "edgy content". A lot of these people want to come off as "edgy". He had Mein Kampf in his Goodreads profile too. Without other evidence, I don't think that really says anything either. Good example: his Goodreads had "Introduction to Algorithms" in it. This is the de facto textbook at MIT, Stanford, etc and likely UPenn (where he got his undergrad and Masters). Does that mean he read it? Not necessarily. Put it this way: the number of people who have read Knuth's volumes is a lot smaller than those who own them as essentially expensive bookends or paperweights. But it's a nice way to signal your technical chops. All of these things need to be taken in a broader context.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Ted K's book is a lucid commentary on technology and society and recommends the dismantling of technological society. Not sure why it would be considered "edgy".
  - lazide 2y ago
    Probably all the mail bombings.
    - whateveracct 2y ago
      hilarious GP called him "Ted K"
  - goatlover 2y ago
    Dismantling technological society isn't realistic and wouldn't be remotely a good thing, so yeah, that's very edgy.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      It would be a good thing for every other species besides humans, that's for sure.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
NalNezumi 2y ago
The take he mention in that is an old reddit comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone_at_rclimate_read_ted_kaczynski_what/ https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...

JKCalhoun 2y ago

More or less lays out his motive right there. I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.

xyst 2y ago
[flagged]
- cagedcrickets 2y ago
  [dead]
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >The USA re-elected the man which basically encouraged the January 6th insurrection and has been suggesting vengeance for a long time now. On top of that, he's going to pardon everyone convicted for that insurrection, and wants to attack the Jan 6 committee somehow.
- energy123 2y ago
  Take a moment to refresh your memory of the Pol Pot regime. If half the population aren't literally getting bludgeoned to death in the streets, remember it can get so, so much worse, so tread carefully with accelerationist sentiments.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      Can you elaborate on your hypothetical doomsday scenario here?
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      A low trust society won, for reasons that have very little to do with accelerationism.
- jwarden 2y ago
  This is still a very civil society, but these hysterical cries to abandon civility aren’t helping.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Eextra953 2y ago
  I feel like I've ripped off the bandaid for a few weeks now and I'm left with a 'now what?' feeling. I'm stuck trying to think of ways we can bring the temperature down and bring us back to being a civil society.
diob 2y ago
Part of the reason we established courts was to avoid angry mobs dispensing justice, but we've let the courts become captured to a large extent. If you don't allow folks to seek justice in the courtroom, they'll inevitably return to "the jungle" so to speak. It's our job as participants in society to do our best to avoid that, but we have to make changes. We can't be idle and wring our hands saying "it can't be helped" or "it's not illegal". We have to change things so that folks will be held accountable. If we don't, this sort of thing is inevitable.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - diob 2y ago
    My comment wasn’t about political capture, but about the capture of the courts by the wealthy class. Apologies if that wasn’t clear. The reality is that the courts have long struggled to hold wealthy and white-collar criminals accountable—unless, of course, their actions harm other wealthy individuals, in which case the system can sometimes swing into action. This issue isn't unique to the United States either; it’s a broader problem where the justice system often fails to address the crimes of the privileged while disproportionately impacting lower-income communities.
    - monero-xmr 2y ago
      I’d be open to ideas of reform. But so often the hot-takes I read online about “THE COURTS ARE RIGGED!1!1!” is simply one of disliking the ideological composition
    - tines 2y ago
      Isn't it the legislative branch that is captured, rather than the judicial? I don't see the courts failing to uphold the law (save for the supreme court which fails to uphold the Constitution, but that doesn't weigh on the everyday person's life much, as we saw through the elections). Insurance companies (mostly) don't actually break the law. It's the legislators that continue to fail to address our problems, and who get paid to look the other way while the working class is looted.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
Violence is very effective. The authorities use it to subjugate the population and the American military uses the threat of violence and the action of actual violence to keep the United States the way it is. Except when it is used by governments, it is often called defense and when it is used by the police it is often called 'keeping the peace'. Violence as a tool for revolution is quite effective -- only pacifism is strongly ingrained in us to make us "good citizens".
- njtransit 2y ago
  Violence certainly can be effective, but also not. Everything is situational. See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Whether or not violence makes sense likely depends on how strong you and your friends are.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    True. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Obviously, in order for it to be effective, you need a good strategy.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Some believe King was successful in part because of the threat of violence from alternative groups like the Black Panthers.
    - hughesjj 2y ago
      King was originally for violent protest until Bayard Rustin convinced him of nonviolent protest
      - sitkack 2y ago
        This is also why the state apparatus like it incite violence in the opposition, this gives them authority to respond with violence. Nonviolent protest and organizing is more dangerous because it could quickly become a populist movement. A small group of people incited into violence, is already fringe and can be quickly suppressed.
mewpmewp2 2y ago
Yet, violence is constantly used by governments and countries. If it is not effective why are the only surviving countries the ones who which have been willing to use violence?
- pokepim 2y ago
  [dead]
tines 2y ago
> I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse. This is a pretty shallow opinion imo. The government operates on violence. America was founded in a violent revolution. The question people are asking isn't about whether violence has its place (it does); it's about how bad things have to get before you stop considering your government to have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, and people can start justly using violence themselves.
- atlintots 2y ago
  "Non-violence is a very non-functional approach in a society that's based entirely on organized force and violence."
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Non-violent economic power is an extremely powerful tool within systems that restrict the use of force. If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days. The allure of violence is that people mistakenly think that they make change without support, when in reality, they are usually just creating effects, not the change that they want. Shooting a school or rioting has a lot of effects, but they almost never make the desired change.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days. This might be more persuasive if you supplied some examples.
      - noisy_boy 2y ago
        > If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something Huge ask right at the beginning. If that is met, there are several examples such as The Velvet Revolution, Iceland's Financial Crisis Protest, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Philippine People Power Revolution (1986) etc.
booleandilemma 2y ago
Tell that to the Syrian rebels.
- maeil 2y ago
  This is a great one. There were plenty of nonviolent protests in Syria throughout the years. They were executed and imprisoned without accomplishing a single thing.
maeil 2y ago
People act based on incentives and disincentives. As of 2024, there are big incentives to cause great damage to society at large for pure personal gain in a manner like this CEO, with no disincentives. This brings back a potential disincentive, and is what has been incredibly sorely needed. The French revolution is often brought up here as a case that is supposed to show that this kind of violence leads to horrific outcomes. This is ironic as on the whole, its results were fantastic. Reason being that it didn't just affect France - all over Europe, the monarchies were suddenly much more willing to restrain their power and care a lot more about the peasants. This is exactly what is needed. This doesn't have to happen to every similar CEO to have an incredibly positive effect.

oliv__ 2y ago

Only four stars though...

ks2048 2y ago

Final sentence is telling (among others): "Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators. Although I'm not sure what "predators" means here. Don't predators use violence?

relaxing 2y ago
Yes. They say it because they want to be the sole wielders of violence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
fshr 2y ago
My guess is he was referring to financial predators. Greed and lust rather than wrath.
- tines 2y ago
  No, he's saying that predators tell their prey not to fight back.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tines 2y ago
      I don't think this is true. How many popular movies are war movies where the heroes are most certainly not pacifists? Even the movie starring a real-life pacifist (Hacksaw Ridge) is about how he, too, fit into the war machine.
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        First, I meant pacifism is promoted as the only recourse for the general citizen, not for the government. Of course, war movies promote the acceptability of violence by the state. Two totally separate phenomena. The state promotes violence by the state, and being docile for the citizen.

jmyeet 2y ago

Personally, I don't put a lot of weight on that. Particularly for people who are terminally online, the Unabomber manifesto is kinda "edgy content". A lot of these people want to come off as "edgy". He had Mein Kampf in his Goodreads profile too. Without other evidence, I don't think that really says anything either. Good example: his Goodreads had "Introduction to Algorithms" in it. This is the de facto textbook at MIT, Stanford, etc and likely UPenn (where he got his undergrad and Masters). Does that mean he read it? Not necessarily. Put it this way: the number of people who have read Knuth's volumes is a lot smaller than those who own them as essentially expensive bookends or paperweights. But it's a nice way to signal your technical chops. All of these things need to be taken in a broader context.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Ted K's book is a lucid commentary on technology and society and recommends the dismantling of technological society. Not sure why it would be considered "edgy".
- lazide 2y ago
  Probably all the mail bombings.
  - whateveracct 2y ago
    hilarious GP called him "Ted K"
- goatlover 2y ago
  Dismantling technological society isn't realistic and wouldn't be remotely a good thing, so yeah, that's very edgy.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    It would be a good thing for every other species besides humans, that's for sure.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

NalNezumi 2y ago

The take he mention in that is an old reddit comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone_at_rclimate_read_ted_kaczynski_what/ https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...