/lit/ - Literature

bump

bump

Here's the deal with Ted. He had a razor sharp intellect, but part 1 (the starting motivation of his manifesto) is rooted in emotional bias, and part 3 (his conclusion / call to action) is extremely vague.

However, the body of the text, part 2, where he goes into detail about HOW industrial society fucks us, he writes with a clarity and force that is quite compelling, and I honestly can't refute this portion of his paper.

But like I said, his initial motivation is biased: he wanted to live a quiet life in the woods and the government built a super highway right across his favorite vista which enraged him. (This actually isn't even in the manifesto itself).

And then his call to action is just: "rebel against technology." But he provides basically zero instructions on HOW to do it.

And that's probably because its impossible. Technology marches on because resistance is impossible. Those who adapt to technology and control it, have a financial, social and military advantage over those who resist the advancement of tech.

I do not see Ted'd dream of revolting against technology EVER happening. But who knows.

I think the real value in reading Ted's paper is that it gives you an extremely accurate framework to understand how the modern world oppresses the fuck out of you. And then, it is up to YOU to decide what actions you'll take in your life to pursue autonomy / meaning / fulfillment in an environment where the technological superstructure continues to erode the individual's freedom / control over his own life.

>>23366928
he doesnt need to be refuted. he was branded a criminal and a psychopath and his books ramblings of a mad man. whatever he had to say was invalidated by those who control the flow of information and behavior, just like everyone else.

>>23367188
This refutation is rooted in emotional bias.

>>23367229
This. His strategy was lose-lose anyway. If he hadn't killed people, everyone would've been like
>oh that's just another future prediction among millions
But he killed people so we get
>HE KILLED MUH PEOPLEEEERINOOO STOP TALKING ABOUT HIM

>>23366928
>Has anyone ever bothered to try and refute Industrial Society and It's Future by Ted Kaczynski?
My refutation is that anyone who thinks this book is correct can fuck off into the forest while the rest of us enjoy our modern industrial society.

P.S. we will come and shoot you at some point so you better sharpen your spears niggers.

>>23367232
He made the right choice. Some people currently care about what he said and if he killed no one they wouldn't.

>>23367238
according to what ive seen, lots of people are REALLY enjoying it. look at what technology wrought. a thousand years led up to this

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/467512336