3 ms·

Okay, that's a reasonable distinction. I agree with you. I think the reason this discussion is frequently had, is that people will read the manifesto, recogniz

Okay, that's a reasonable distinction. I agree with you. I think the reason this discussion is frequently had, is that people will read the manifesto, recognize that it discusses some interesting issues in a self-consistent way, and want to discuss those ideas without simultaneously heading off semi-veiled accusations of "are you going to blow stuff up now too?". In fact, I would argue that considering that the Unabomber manifesto has been inspiration to at least two very intelligent people as they commit targeted murder against strangers, there is something interesting and unusual about that corpus of ideas compared to other writings by other figures. I'm unaware of any highly educated people who have become similarly radicalized after reading Mein Kampf. Something is uniquely appealing about Kaczynski's writings.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
On that I agree. When I read the manifesto, I thought there were a number of incredibly prescient ideas. Other parts I disagreed with. I agree that there's a distinction between having an outside opinion about the direction of society, and becoming a terrorist. It ultimately comes down to if someone truly believes that the ends justify the means. In my opinion, deontological morality is primarily what prevents terrorism, followed by individual humility and acceptance of fallibility. Unfortunately, I think utilitarianism and consequentialism are currently in Ascension in the USA.