/lit/ - Literature

>>15417617
No cowboys anywhere to be found in any of his writings.

It’s fucking shit.

>>15417617
uhhh, u new here? this thred regens 4/5 times daily..

>>15417617
my problem with Ted is that it doesn't matter if he is right; we can't hit the breaks on technological global capitalism now.

>>15417617
>his views on the technological development and its consequences.
Nearly all technological advancements are neutral tools. The tech of the 1800s were bad enough to destroy a lot of the American wilderness as it was. The *reasons* people use are what’s at issue.

>>15417617
Reading ISAIF for the first time was enlightening purely for the volume of ideas it exposed to me. I'm not sure to what extent I agreed with any of his theses, but its primary value was giving me a whole new way to think about technology and the modern world in general. Now that I'm reading Ellul I'm expecting to come back to Kaczynski shortly and with a more critical perspective. ISAIF is basically required reading imo.

>>15418304
t. hasn't read Kaczynski

>>15418343
No one engages. So Ted is aware that technology isn’t the problem? Really? I’ve been misled.

>>15418269
yes, new

>>15418283
he still offers a (radical, admittedly) solution though

>>15418304
low level argument, read kaczynski. srsly.

>>15418333
ellul is a high brow version of ted's isaif, basically. if you are interested, seriously consider Anti-Tech Revolution. It goes much more in depth. Ted's genius really shows there.

>>15418355
A good portion of ISAIF is concerned with characterizing and delimiting the scope of individual human choice regarding new technologies. It's literally 30 pages go read it and if you still have the same opinion then you can say what you think Ted got wrong or why he failed to convince you, and we can have an actual discussion. If you want to keep posting about why you think ideas you're not familiar with are wrong, though, you'll keep getting t. hasn't read Kaczynski.

Bump.

>>15418283
>we can't hit the breaks on technological global capitalism now.

That's what the system wants you to think.

>>15418454
I presented an argument. If you’re unable summarize these thirty pages and carry on a civil conversation, I guess I’ll have to read it

>>15417617
He is a homosexual dog rapist. He raped at least one male dog with a knife (guess he can't get it up so he fucks with a knife).

>>15417617
I think they're gibberish written by a deranged hermit and touted as being much more impressive than they really are by impressionable fools.

Ted's frame of reference was some colleagues. That's it. He didn't have any real insight into the workings of the world around him, which is why his theories are bunk. He took his own personal lack of volition as being a reliable context from which a theory about civilization could be built. Basically, he was given the opportunity to become something, and he squandered it, because he became obsessed with the ridiculous notion that somehow he wasn't free because he used technology. Technology only enslaves if you're not intelligent enough to control it or if you neglect to gain command over it. The view that it has the whole world in a death grip is a weakling's mindset, and not fact.

>>15417617
Nothing a gay tranny dog fucker has to say is of the slightest interest to me. Hope he is enjoying all that BBC that American prisons are famous for.

>Another of their dogs had to be put down because someone "had repeatedly stabbed and gouged the entire area under his tail, shredding his colon, hips and rectal area" with a spear or sharp knife, Waits writes. A different dog was shot up the rectum with a small-caliber bullet, dying an agonizingly slow death.

>The Waitses sometimes found their dogs smeared with human excrement. [note: this is from Kaczynski being fucked up the ass by them] In addition, Chris Waits had heard Kaczynski curse at the dogs at times when the hermit thought Waits couldn't hear the curses.

>Waits said the Unabomber's writings he read couldn't confirm that Kaczynski killed the dogs, but the FBI found other documents proving he had.

>>15420074
Classic glowy disinformation tactics.

>>15419763

>t. FBI agent still mad
He won, you lost.

>>15420117

>>15420117
Dude, your hero is a tranny dog-fucking faggot who raped AT LEAST two dogs with a knife and a gun that we know of. I doubt he stopped at just two.

Just accept it.

>>15420117
This, jesus this guy is transparent.

>>15420135
How is taking it up the ass from niggers all day winning? Well, it probably is for (You)...

Come one people. he fucked dogs. It is well documented. He fucked them with a knife and a gun when he couldn't get it up. Jeez.
You guys are such babies.

>>15418616
well the system is comprised of people, and the vast majority of people are fully on board with liberal capitalism. there would have to be a massive shift in public opinion for any major changes to take place.

>>15417659
>cowboys
what's that some sort of mythological creature that is half cow half young human male?

>>15417659
>No cowboys anywhere to be found in any of his writings.
Literally irrelevant and not worth mentioning in any capacity.

>>15418304
>Nearly all technological advancements are neutral tools.
loool

>>15420167
>well the system is comprised of people, and the vast majority of people are fully on board with liberal capitalism.

That just indicates the system has its grasp on those people. Of course it's in the system's best interest for the people within it to want to perpetuate it.

Technology good. Crazy man bad.

>>15420167
>you need public support to incur a revolution
Tell that to the Bolshevics, Irish nationalists, Castro, Egyptian military, etc.

>>15419773
>Technology only enslaves if you're not intelligent enough to control it or if you neglect to gain command over it.
What the fuck do you even mean by this? Have you even read ANY of Ted's works?

>>15419773
I don't know what this post means

>>15420155

t. alphabet soup loser projecting what he has reason to believe is happening to his wife lately.

>>15417617
I actually read his writings as a child and came away with a well reasoned conclusion on technology in society. However I also had a Gameboy with me, and considered if this black plastic monolith were stunting my development. I learned chess from it. Today I use a midi controller to learn piano. I used technology to make a graphic design project that was quite important. I use technology to even write this, and for you to read it, and for us to stimulate each other's dopamine receptors and communicate. There is benefit and value to technology, obviously, that's why it exists, that Kaczynski did not comprehend as he was likely not raised around computers.

They're reactionary and undialectical. It's hard to take him that seriously when the essence of his critique can only be written from the standpoint of being fully within a technological society: i.e, they're virtually baseless and point to a "before the fall" time that never fully existed.

>>15418375
Reducing Ellul to a high brow Kaczynski is definitely someone who has not read The Technological Society. Ellul was a pacifist firstly, which already makes major differences for their philosophy. Secondly Ellul was also a Christian, which plays a serious part of his critique. They’re fundamentally different interpretations overall and reduces both texts to just the general idea that ‘technology bad’ when both are much more complex in their approach and conclusions.

>>15418375
>>15418343
>>15420268
The only reason you would oppose the idea is if you were afraid of what would happen if someone asked the very dangerous corollary question "who is using technology for evil and why?" Gotta steer things back to luddism, blaming inanimate objects and ideas for evil acts done by men, to avoid the scariest question in the world.

>>15420772
>to avoid the scariest question in the world.
The question of "what is evil"? Easy, it's a privation of God's grace. Evil is like cold, it doesn't actually exist, it only appears to exist as a lack of something else.