>tfw he was right all along

File: 86 KB, 625x926, ted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:22:45 2019 No.12523847 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw he was right all along

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:27:15 2019 No.12523874

>Maybe if I just mutilate enough random people, the world will unilaterally decide to forcibly stop all technological process.
His brain was damaged by an illness as an infant, he never fully recovered, and it shows. I don't know how or why so many people are acting as if he has credibility all of a sudden.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:28:19 2019 No.12523883 >>12523874 t.neurotypical normie

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:28:44 2019 No.12523886 >>12523874 Refute some of his assertions, then. I don't hear many people justifying the murder, but the ideas articulated in Industrial Society are quite thoughtful and extremely prescient.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:30:44 2019 No.12523902 >tfw a math burnout posts a shallow critique of technology and some losers on 4chan think its genius

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:32:51 2019 No.12523918 >>12523886 But that requires effort, I’m just a dumb retard haha also I’m a faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:35:15 2019 No.12523942 You guys make this exact same thread every day with the same picture too. How come?

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:35:28 2019 No.12523944

>>12523847
Okay, but do you like to use technology OP? I guess since you are here, posting questions, whom you seek answers to, you really are trying to utlize technology for some personal gratification. Isnt it absurd then, to protest it?

Sure, go ahead an sever your internet connection, toss your telly, computer and phone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:39:28 2019 No.12523963 >>12523902 Yes :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:40:50 2019 No.12523973 >>12523874 it was self defense

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:47:36 2019 No.12524011

>>12523886
First of all, credibility matters. It takes significantly more effort to dismantle bullshit than to put it up in the first place, and my energy is limited. If a well is poisoned, the water is undrinkable. You can't take the water out of the well, hand it to me in a bucket, and say "See? The water and well are entirely separate now, why would you be worried about poison anymore?". I could put in the effort necessary to show you that the water you've provided contains poison, but I shouldn't have to, we both know what well you took it from. I shouldn't have to waste my time tearing down a diet book written by a fat person, and equally I shouldn't have to waste my time tearing down the philosophy of a mentally ill murderer.

That said, if you would like to provide an argument he made, I will do my best to argue against it, for principle if nothing else.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:50:10 2019 No.12524029

I'm mad at Ted. And disappointed in him. He could have made something of himself, he could have achieved actual change. Nevermind that he squandered his potential as a mathematician, he squandered his potential as a philosopher too.

Why make bombs? Why hurt people? What was the point? I mean yes, it did have the benefit of letting his manifesto get published, and read across the country. But it also doomed him, and now his ideas will forever be stigmatized and associated with his autism.

If he had the integrity to work hard on his manifesto, clean it up, make it better, and publish it normally, he could have spearheaded a legitimate movement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:53:29 2019 No.12524058 >>12523942 Because he was right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:55:10 2019 No.12524068 >>12524029 Overdosing on the blackpill affects your mental state. He thought he had no other choice but to become a terrorist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:57:33 2019 No.12524088 >>12524068 Is asexuality part of the blackpill?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:59:00 2019 No.12524096 >>12524068 >Overdosing on the blackpill affects your mental state. No, it's the brain damaging fever he suffered as a newborn that did that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 13:59:38 2019 No.12524099 it was justified, he couldn't let society get close to him

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:08:08 2019 No.12524143 >>12523847 >>12524029 How did he explain or justify sending bombs to people? What was the rationale?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:14:00 2019 No.12524174 >>12523874 >>12524096 Brain damaged people get Math Phds from Ivy Leagues that easily? You delusional normalfags. His books was praised by actual intellectuals, not only 4chan contrarians

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:14:37 2019 No.12524181 >>12524143 He explained it precisely in the manifesto. >>12524068 >>12524096 >>12524029 >>12524011 You never read the manifesto

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:17:21 2019 No.12524196 >>12524143 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvT98ny5lc0

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:18:48 2019 No.12524208

>>12524143
>>12524029
>>12523874
The violence was only a mean to spread the message contained in his manifesto

In early 1995, he demanded Industrial Society and Its Future was to be published in its entirety by reputable publications.

The New York Times and The Washington Post published it in September 1995. As promised, he refrained from further acts of violence from that point onwards

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:19:14 2019 No.12524212
File: 23 KB, 534x534, 1547376200025.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12523886
>Anders Breivik murdered 77 people on 22. july 2011
>20 years later
>"Refute some of his assertions then. The ideas articulated in his manifesto "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" are quite thoughtful and extremely prescient"

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:20:30 2019 No.12524216
File: 804 KB, 700x775, 1548075104263.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12524068
>He thought he had no other choice but to become a terrorist.

There is no other choice, we have been using our words since the 50s and look were its brought us. They would intrude on us a take an inch. We would protest. They will step back, and then we calm down.

They will do this forever until they take a mile.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:29:06 2019 No.12524261 >>12524208 >he killed people for publicity Is that supposed to make him more credible or...?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:33:53 2019 No.12524291 Why don't brainlets get that the moment he started bombing people he literally acknowledged himself that arguments don't matter, so why should anyone else care about the arguments in his manifesto?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:34:41 2019 No.12524299 File: 145 KB, 2048x1152, 1548717441278.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >trusting the rationality of someone who would resort to murder

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:37:13 2019 No.12524315 File: 6 KB, 205x246, 1516131470720.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12524299 >>12524291 >>12524261 >>12524212 >violence isn't an argument guys

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:39:06 2019 No.12524324 >>12524315 It reflects that the individual isn't mentally sound and therefore not trustworthy sources.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:41:30 2019 No.12524338 >>12524315 >grug lose argument >grug smash

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:44:19 2019 No.12524356 >>12524299 >>12524324 how's murder inherently tied to irrationality or to an "unsound" mind?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:47:20 2019 No.12524369 >>12523874 only retards don't understand the usefulness of terrorism

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:52:23 2019 No.12524399 >>12524369 It's not useful at all, the only thing it does is show how much of a failure and how desperate you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:53:18 2019 No.12524407 >>12524299 >not trusting your own rationality to discern whether or not their thoughts are rational

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:53:48 2019 No.12524412 >>12524324 Just because he's "crazy" doesn't mean he's stupid or wrong; it's like that joke about the car that had a flat tire next to an asylum. Instead of concentrating on Ted, why don't you try and refute his arguments?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:56:39 2019 No.12524431 >>12524399 Do you have any idea the amount of attention terrorism brings to you? Look at the resurgence of Islamism, in reality its nowhere near the threat is really is, but the facade of terrorism gives reimburses this threat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:57:42 2019 No.12524437 >>12524338 and no matter how you feel, that makes grug right

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:58:32 2019 No.12524444

>>12523847
Kaczynski fanboys piss me off. The thing that pisses me off the most about them is that I only seem to encounter them on the internet.

If I have the choice between being a depressed modern man living in a metropolitan city and being a happy caveman in a pre-industrial society then the choice is fairly obvious to me.

Throw your computer away and move to the woods if that fits your definition of happiness. I don't care much for the notion of happiness that Kaczynski uses and will carry on with my current lifestyle. The majority of his reasoning is based on the assumption that his notion of happiness is the ultimate good. If that assumption doesn't make sense to you then most of his work turns into a pile of rubbish.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:59:34 2019 No.12524452

>>12524431
The thing is, the reason islamists start blowing shit up is because they are afraid of losing their religion. People who are steadfast in their faith don't blow shit up, because they aren't insecure.

A certain proportion of Muslims are afraid of Western and technological influence on Islam, and in 100 years I bet you that Islam is about as milquetoast as Christianity is now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 14:59:57 2019 No.12524456 >>12524444 redditspacing

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:01:51 2019 No.12524469 >>12524444 >being a depressed modern man living in a metropolitan city and being a happy caveman in a pre-industrial society then the choice is fairly obvious to me Because you are the epitome of a bugman

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:02:23 2019 No.12524474 >>12524444 You never read his manifesto. Why the fuck this board is filled with people who don't read?

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:03:17 2019 No.12524477

>>12524452
I agree for the most part, but it doesn't change the fact that Islamic terrorism is now at the forefront of every bodies minds. This is due to no other reason than Islamic terrorism. I would argue however that Islam will crumble in similar fashion to Christianity, perhaps the world will globalize peacefully, but Islam may very well revitalize itself. Prophets of history have more often than not been proven wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:03:31 2019 No.12524479 >>12524469 You don't even know what that word means. >>12524474 I've read his manifesto and other texts written by him.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:04:36 2019 No.12524484

>>12524444
You can't really do that now. Moving into the woods isn't an option. You still have to pay taxes, you still have to by the increasingly expensive property and the technological world is constantly moving further and further into "the woods" as you put it. His ideas aren't the best but if you entirely dismiss what he says on the basis you have given us I'd say he should have mailed a bomb to your parents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:05:43 2019 No.12524488 >>12524479 I don't believe you've read his manifesto.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:05:44 2019 No.12524489

>>12524479
You are lying since him explained specifically that the problem isn't "happiness" and that "living in the nature" won't solve anything.
He explained it in a very specific manner. You never read his manifesto, you fat, disgusting, subhuman piece of filth

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:06:23 2019 No.12524493 >>12524479 'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:11:31 2019 No.12524513 >>12524437 Not really. Incorrect ideas, when put into practice, fail while correct ideas don't. Grug could smash everyone saying that people die if they don't drink water, but Grug will still inevitably die of dehydration.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:13:54 2019 No.12524522

>>12524412
>Just because the well is "poisoned" doesn't mean the water in it is unsafe to drink; it's like that joke about the car that had a flat tire next to an asylum. Instead of concentrating on the well, why don't you try to prove the water itself is dangerous?

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:17:55 2019 No.12524543

>>12524522
But you see, this is where your idiocy is made manifest. The fact that he killed people is unrelated to the logical strength of his arguments, and this is the reason why "ad hom" (which I admit is thrown around far too commonly) is a thing that exists.
You are free to dismiss his arguments because of his actions, but don't be surprised if people dismiss yours too for being a moron.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:18:59 2019 No.12524548 >>12524484 >All these excuses You know that there are still plenty of people living off the grid, right? You can still move to alaska, the woods, or the desert if you wanted to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:20:19 2019 No.12524553 >>12524548 >I didn't read a book but I'll pretend I did despite I receive no compensation whatsover Books for this feel?

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:21:05 2019 No.12524554

>>12524484
>if you entirely dismiss what he says on the basis
He does present some interesting ideas and I agree with some of his claims. The thing that I am dismissing is that a pre-industrial society is more desirable than the current society.

>>12524489
>the problem isn't "happiness"
Of course it is. It's the foundation of his reasoning. He doesn't value human progress and would rather live in a society with "happier" individuals.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:22:02 2019 No.12524560 >>12523874 Wanna know how I can tell you're incel?

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:23:35 2019 No.12524569

>>12524543
He killed random people. That either means that he doesn't believe in arguments, or his philosophy permitted him to do so. In the former situation, his arguments are meaningless. In the latter situation, his arguments are supporting a philosophy that permits random murder, which would be a waste of time to bother with as someone opposed to random murder.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:23:42 2019 No.12524570

>>12524174
The only people that are impressed by ivy leagues are people who are too dumb and poor to ever imagine going to one. They're generally dogshit schools now and have been since the 60s. They're only held in such high regard because it's a social status bonus to have attended, not because you got some god tier education. Dumbass poverty boy over here reveres the rich because he fell for their tricks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:24:37 2019 No.12524575 >>12524560 Yeah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:25:05 2019 No.12524582 >>12524570 the only people that hate on ivy leagues are people who are too dumb and poor to ever imagine going to one

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:25:26 2019 No.12524584 >>12524569 This is a total non sequitur. What are you even doing on a literature board if you're not even gonna discus his works or ideas and just dismiss him based on his actions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:27:41 2019 No.12524597 >>12524543 >The fact that he killed people is unrelated to the logical strength of his arguments if his arguments had logical strength he wouldn't have had to kill people to get them to listen lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:28:34 2019 No.12524603 >>12524584 How is it a non sequitur? If he believed his arguments were sound, he would have used them instead of pipe bombs, so they're not worth anyone's time. How is the concept of 'credibility' completely alien to you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:28:50 2019 No.12524604 >>12524597 This is such mind-boggling idiocy I wonder how you even dress yourself when you get up

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:29:43 2019 No.12524611 >>12524604 why don't you mail me a bomb? i'm sure that'd convince me you're not stupid lmao

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:29:53 2019 No.12524612

>>12524603
>If he believed his arguments were sound, he would have used them instead of pipe bombs, so they're not worth anyone's time
He did believe his arguments were sound, but he wanted them to reach as wide a public as possible.
Are you really as naive as your posts make you out to be?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:31:17 2019 No.12524621 >>12524554 No. You didn't read his manifesto at all, this is becoming pathetic. Read the entirety of a book, without skimming one bit, before commenting, otherwise you'll never grow

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:32:48 2019 No.12524629 >>12523886 Here's two: 1. A surrogate activity is indemonstrable. 2. He provides no evidence for his claim that quality of life was higher in the pre-industrial era than in the post-industrial era.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:32:49 2019 No.12524630 [DELETED]

>>12523847
>>12523874
>>12523886
>>12523902
>>12523918
>>12523942
>>12523944
>>12523963
>>12523973
>>12524011
>>12524029
>>12524058
>>12524068
>>12524088
>>12524096
>>12524099
>>12524143
>>12524174
>>12524181
>>12524196
>>12524208
>>12524212
>>12524216
>>12524261
>>12524291
>>12524299
>>12524315
>>12524324
>>12524338
>>12524356
>>12524369
>>12524399
>>12524407
>>12524412
>>12524431
>>12524437
>>12524444
>>12524452
>>12524456
>>12524469
>>12524474
>>12524477
>>12524479
>>12524484
>>12524488
>>12524489
>>12524493
>>12524513
>>12524522
>>12524543
>>12524548
>>12524553
>>12524554
>>12524560
>>12524569
>>12524570
>>12524575
>>12524582
>>12524584
>>12524597
>>12524603
>>12524604
>>12524611
>>12524612
>>12524621
It seems that, along with /soc/ and /adv/-tier threads, Ted threats attract the dumbest people in /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:33:35 2019 No.12524635 >>12524630 >t. incel

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:37:42 2019 No.12524655 >>12524621 I've read his manifesto, other texts by him and even letters he sent out of prison. But keep telling yourself that anyone who isn't a uncle ted fanboy just hasn't witnessed his greatness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:38:03 2019 No.12524657 >>12524513 You're not understanding the vast majority of ideas are based on moral assumptions and that these ideas can only be implemented, not matter how badly, by those with power.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:38:13 2019 No.12524659

>>12524612
>He did believe his arguments were sound, but he wanted them to reach as wide a public as possible.
If you use murder and mutilation to disseminate information instead of, I don't know, a fucking ad or something, you've demonstrated you're stupid enough to disregard. I do not have the time or energy to dismantle the ravings of every idiot on the planet, and your guy isn't special.

Go downtown and look for a homeless guy wearing a sign and yelling about the apocalypse and debate him. Try to use philosophical discussion to get a child to stop throwing a temper tantrum. Argue your dog into not shitting on the rug. Waste your life trying to deconstruct the obviously irrational to the obviously irrational.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:40:27 2019 No.12524668 >>12524630 The people who make Ted threads are the dumbest people on /lit/ already so that just doesn't make sense.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:41:10 2019 No.12524672

>>12524657
It doesn't matter how much power you have, if you try to force the idea that up is down and left is right, your structure will collapse. You can point guns at people that disagree until your fuckups compound to the point that you can't manufacture ammunition. The Soviet Union shot a whole bunch of people that said Marxism is untenable, and then it collapsed in on itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:41:23 2019 No.12524673 >>12524655 Why do you lie anon? What do you gain from it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:42:46 2019 No.12524676 Dear lord the reddit is strong itt

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:43:12 2019 No.12524679

>>12524612
terrorism as advertisement is pretty stupid because it demonstrates how nearsighted you are. yes you'll reach a wide audience but it'll distance that audience from your ideas even further because you're now a terrorist murderer. the only people he reached by mailing bombs to people are edgy teenagers on 4chan who were going to find his work anyways because of the nature of it. He only did himself a disservice by resorting to terrorism and it hurt his ideas in the end because no he's known as a terrorist and nobody even gives a shit about what he wrote. He could've been irrelevant and NOT in prison, AND not at the expense of lives. Instead he chose to be known as a terrorist and spend his life in prison, essentially accomplishing absolutely nothing if not hurting his goal. Believe it or not there does exist such a thing as bad PR and this is the definition if it.
The fact that things have only "gotten worse" according to Ted's philosophy just stands as a testament as to how miserable of a misstep the bombs were. He didn't accomplish anything, and that fact is evidence supporting the assertion that terrorism was not the answer.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:46:13 2019 No.12524690

>>12524659
>Go downtown and look for a homeless guy wearing a sign and yelling about the apocalypse and debate him. Try to use philosophical discussion to get a child to stop throwing a temper tantrum. Argue your dog into not shitting on the rug. Waste your life trying to deconstruct the obviously irrational to the obviously irrational.
See, this is how I know your IQ is in the double digits.
Enjoy that Zucc cock, bby

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:46:50 2019 No.12524694 >>12524690 not an argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:49:58 2019 No.12524712 File: 8 KB, 300x168, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12523847 >He thought that we could go back to paleolithic times and stay there

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 15:51:23 2019 No.12524718 >>12524712 He never said that. He actually argued against primitivism. Why people on /lit/ don't read?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:01:39 2019 No.12524780 >>12524718 >He never said that. Yes he did, and you are pretending to be a smartass through a blatant lie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:03:22 2019 No.12524794 >>12524780 He never did. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism Please read books before criticizing them

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:09:22 2019 No.12524830 >>12524672 I agree, but there are plenty of ideas that are complete opposites that will be both be maintainable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:15:40 2019 No.12524864 >>12524830 If they're maintainable indefinitely, they're not wrong, are they? It's just a matter of which side fails first.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:15:51 2019 No.12524866

>>12524794
>http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

It is obvious that you haven´t read his magnum opus. So go ahead and read it.

Just in case you don´t have the balls or the brain to do so, let me give you an advice on how to prove yourself wrong

>ctrl + f
>"primitive"

>ctrl + f
>"primitive"

Go through them and try to figure out what he's trying to say

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:18:41 2019 No.12524879 >>12524866 I never said he didn't use the word "primitive" I said he never suggested we could back and eternally stay in the paleolithic. Read his manifesto in it's entirely before speaking

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 16:46:19 2019 No.12525019 >>12524864 So therefore, grug is right if he can kill rog and exert his ideas on his tribe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 17:11:21 2019 No.12525163 >>12524629 Will anyone respond to this? I know it's probably being ignored because of the eyesore of a post underneath it.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 17:12:08 2019 No.12525169

>>12525019
How an idea is implemented has no bearing on the validity of the idea. Drinking water is important, even if you have to beat people into submission to get them to drink it. That said, if one group beats people into drinking water, and one beats people into abstaining from water, the latter will collapse before the former.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 17:53:59 2019 No.12525463

>>12524629
His later works are much better, properly put together and far harder to refute
Aside from the general message in the last part of his manifesto he kinda just goes off on a tangent about everything and rants about things specific to the west/US

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 18:02:17 2019 No.12525494 >>12525463 The core concepts don't change in his later works though.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 18:57:51 2019 No.12525711

>>12523847
He may have been right in some respects but his mistake was in assuming you could change anything, you'd be better off trying to find your place in the slums of society. If he hadn't impotently lashed out he could still visit his trees, mountains, and flashing streams.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 19:09:53 2019 No.12525769 http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/the-unabomber-ted-kaczynski-new-generation-of-acolytes.html this was an interesting article on the whole thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 19:29:14 2019 No.12525870 is Uncle Ted an anti-accelerationist? he sounds like he thinks that technological growth cant be stopped

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:08:25 2019 No.12526068 File: 96 KB, 634x701, 1549148810757[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12524630 You fear the chad philosopher

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:14:44 2019 No.12526082

>>12523847

This guy on YouTube claims Ted was a questioning transexual. And said in his writings'the only way I will touch a women is if I become one myself'

Thoughts? Personally I'm angry these people are slandering him while he is in prison
https://youtu.be/xMUI6qdN0uY

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:17:07 2019 No.12526094 >>12523874 his brain was damaged by the mk ultra shite m8

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:25:24 2019 No.12526122 >>12524399 terrorism is an extremely effective tactic, hence why it gets used so frequently

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:27:58 2019 No.12526133 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:29:23 2019 No.12526143 >>12524554 >progress increases human happiness makes it kind of hard to explain the current popularity of SSRIs and heroin

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:48:36 2019 No.12526212 File: 128 KB, 1195x960, 1525440410184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] only comfy (boring) normalfags fear him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 2 20:55:05 2019 No.12526235 >>12524324 >haha I would never ever support murdering innocent people >oh and btw all those wars we fought where innocent people were murdered in their homes as collateral are justified btw FUCK NAZIS What a proud intellectual you are.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 21:01:22 2019 No.12526267

Um guys, all us real intelligent philosophers know violence is never okay so jut like shut up.

I don't even get violent when blacks broke into my home and raped my wife because I am an intellectual and if you read wikipedia articles you can find out what philosophy is actually correct and respected among fellow university intellectuals such as myself.

Anonymous Sat Feb 2 21:34:06 2019 No.12526447

>>12526143
Higher population. Progress increases human happiness, but doesn't spread that increase. In other words, there are more people now due to progress in medicine, and a wider gap between the masses and the elite, the former being more miserable than before and the latter being happier than ever before.

I don't get why this is so difficult for people to understand. Happiness is a privilege of the elite, and it always has been. The population is going up because medicine and technology have reduced child mortality rates. The elite is not going to be growing in size at the rate that the masses will be. What do you think that means for the masses?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 01:37:33 2019 No.12527643 >>12523902 >t. hasn't read industrial society and its future

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 03:31:48 2019 No.12528048

>>12524548
Something youve missed is that a large portion of the meaning that comes with living a pre industrial society life is that you would have a small tightly knit community. Going and living in the woods on your own is not the same as being a member of a tribe and caring for each other like your life depends on it (because it does).

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 05:16:21 2019 No.12528347 >>12523902 Do your research kid. He was Harvard educated, young for his class. Was part of some lsd study by some corrupt fuckhead teacher. He reads classic literature in their original languages like German and Russian.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 06:00:21 2019 No.12528494 >>12524324 Are you implying that violence is inherently "unsound of mind" or insane?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 07:43:41 2019 No.12528765 File: 131 KB, 900x750, serveimage-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12524444 >I'd rather be second in a city than first in a village And that's why you'll always be a sore loser, kiddo

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 07:45:07 2019 No.12528772 >>12524484 The whole reason Kaczynski wrote his manifesto was that they started building a road right through the woods he was living in.

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 07:49:34 2019 No.12528785

>>12524569
Before making an argument you need a medium where people can listen to the argument. Killing people was what it took to acquire such a medium, because they certainly wouldn't give him a voice willy nilly. You don't notice the significance of such a medium due to implicit beliefs in rational self-interest and a free marketplace of ideas, which operate on the assumption of a completely flat medium visible to all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 10:17:19 2019 No.12529168 >>12528785 he assumed that the system has not acquired full control over human behavior yet so he had to hurry to spread his message, whereas the system has done so long before he was born

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 11:33:32 2019 No.12529421 >>12524548 Not if you live in the UK

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 12:19:59 2019 No.12529615 >>12524548 To be fair Alaska and the deserts are in the extreme fringes of human acceptable climate and are significantly more difficult to survive in than the areas that have been overtaken by civilization.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:18:14 2019 No.12530251 >>12524548 i mean, a large amount of people in the 3rd world never even got a chance to go "on the grid", so they're unironically living off the grid, just not in this romantic nostalgic way that 1st worlders think

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:21:15 2019 No.12530268 He was right about everything

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:27:57 2019 No.12530317

> I'm mad at Ted. And disappointed in him. He could have made something of himself, he could have achieved actual change. Nevermind that he squandered his potential as a mathematician, he squandered his potential as a philosopher too.

I am disappointed in people like you, who think that everything is able to be accomplished without violence or blood. This is terribly incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:30:34 2019 No.12530337 File: 67 KB, 453x753, 1D6DD5ED-31B3-493C-B849-BC7115F790DF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Reading and writing, especially philosophy, is one of the best examples of a surrogate activity

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:33:34 2019 No.12530359 >>12530337 >surrogate activity see >>12524629

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:34:42 2019 No.12530366 >>12524174 >Brain damaged people get Math Phds from Ivy Leagues that easily? Yes, you can still be really good at math while having mental illnesses. Did you not have any colleagues that became Schizos? It's one of the saddest things to see.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:44:34 2019 No.12530405 >>12523874 Unabomber's Deranged Mind Formerly Ted's

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:50:50 2019 No.12530437 >>12530366 I'm sure the mental health assessment of the guy who spent decades mailing bombs, eluding the FBI and causing massive embarassment to law enforcement wasn't at all biased or political in nature

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 14:58:25 2019 No.12530478 >>12530317 >What was he supposed to do? Take an ad out in the newspaper? He just HAD to murder people for attention! You're as retarded as Ted himself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 15:06:10 2019 No.12530538 >>12530478 How many of us would know about his manifesto if the only advertising for it was an ad in the newspaper?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 15:07:53 2019 No.12530549 >all the idealist anti-violence in this thread Violence beats any argument Violence, or the threat of violence, is assertion of power, which is the moving force of history.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 15:08:35 2019 No.12530556 >>12530549 >Violence beats any argument what a monkey lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 15:10:34 2019 No.12530566 >>12530538 We'll never know because he didn't even fucking try.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 15:11:05 2019 No.12530570 >>12530549 post your address then so I can come beat your ass to prove how stupid you are lmao

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 15:11:51 2019 No.12530573 Why don't people start organizing a revolution?

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 16:06:36 2019 No.12530889

>>12530566
It’s not like we nothing, people put ads in newspapers all the time. Most of them aren’t even noticed, and even if they are, nobody takes further action. And that’s for goods and services, how many people would’ve read a manifesto they saw an advertisement for? Don’t play dumb, the answer is likely zero.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 16:13:34 2019 No.12530930 >>12530337 Why? Why must you torment me so?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 16:27:11 2019 No.12531036 >>12530930 I second this motion

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 16:27:58 2019 No.12531039 imagine my shock

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 16:37:49 2019 No.12531103
File: 68 KB, 636x421, gail and frank zappa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time.
This is what living in California does to people. Totally warps their view of the world and think that the majority of people think like basedboys.

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 16:51:28 2019 No.12531187

>>12530889
Literally what did murder accomplish? Yeah, a lot more people know there was once a big faggot named Ted who was scared of calculators, so he decided to spend his time blowing people up and shitting in the woods, that's it. He wanted a whole bunch of attention for himself, and that's what he got, and nobody gives a fuck about his stupid ideas. Random bombings weren't just unproductive, they were counter-productive. A newspaper ad may have left him at square one, but it wouldn't have rocketed him fucking backwards in progress like mutilating innocent civilians did.

He was a fucking idiot who did the most fucking idiotic thing he could do because he was buttmad over people ignoring his fucking idiotic ideas.

Anonymous Sun Feb 3 17:09:25 2019 No.12531298

>>12524444
>>If I have the choice between being a depressed modern man living in a metropolitan city and being a happy caveman in a pre-industrial society then the choice is fairly obvious to me.
>
>Throw your computer away and move to the woods if that fits your definition of happiness.
This is impossible to do in the UK

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 18:38:30 2019 No.12531716 >>12524673 freedom > happiness?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 18:46:02 2019 No.12531764 >>12524011 Credibility matters when it comes to convincing a person, not when it comes to the validity of the argument itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 18:52:53 2019 No.12531794 >>12524143 We could try to send him a letter. I heard he answers them sometimes

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 21:35:39 2019 No.12532409 >>12531187 Stay mad. You sound like one of those people who think Varg is bad for killing Euronymous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 23:01:05 2019 No.12532820 >>12524324 Do you even read? Most of the greatest thinkers of all time believed violence could be justified. And don’t ask me for a source, you fucking limp-wristed redditer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 23:02:13 2019 No.12532828 >>12530556 Post body.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 23:06:47 2019 No.12532849 >>12526082 I once read an article where they tried to explain his manifesto and actions as being that of a frustrated tranny. The author should be shot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 23:35:07 2019 No.12532982 >the only way humanity can survive is if we all go back to wiping our asses with leaves

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 23:39:12 2019 No.12533001 >>12524444 Just checking these quads.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 3 23:47:21 2019 No.12533038 >>12524369 american bourgeois

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 00:56:00 2019 No.12533315

>>12525711
The experience he credits with starting his killings is that one day he hiked out to his favorite viewing spot and found they plowed a fucking highway though the meadow.
He saw the constant loss of natural beauty to the progress of technology.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 01:09:01 2019 No.12533374

>>12526447
This is BS. The Elite are fucking miserable. Have you ever met a really rich group of people? They are all writhing in their own sadness and unfulfilling hedonism.
The Poor are equally hedonistic, but with the added hindrance of being unable to do anything about it.

People are objectively less happy in a consumption based society because there will NEVER be enough.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 01:33:19 2019 No.12533460

Ted was aware that we have made a transition from the former processes of natural selection into a new form of selection as is governed by the "system" and where we are now evolving into something which can be described as docile, obedient something in which he described as "lacking autonomy". We now have become workers for the system. Take for example on how school rids us of a significant portion of our freedom in order to produce workers that the system requires in order to for it to survive. Look at the increasing demand for engineers and programmers He then argues on why freedom and technology couldn't coexist as we become extremely dependent on the system. We have become literal slaves and we WILL evolve to become slaves to the system because without the system we won't be able to function.Progress in technology requires people to maintain and actively work on it.So this will eventually lead us to evolve into something which benefits the system So either we evolve into people who enjoy doing stupid shit so that the system survives. Or we don't enjoy and just become mindless sheep doing whatever is necessary for system. Either way human behavior will be significantly altered for the system and this will cause a huge amount of suffering just look at how widespread depression and other mental illnesses have become and especially since with all of the progress we have made in understanding the and manipulating the human mind. Just look at how the internet ,social media and porn.Just how addictive they have become. Of course, there are outliers who have total freedom and can do whatever the hell they want but the the system REQUIRES people and thus the evolution of the human race continues...

https://youtu.be/gl9DgAM2zSk

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 01:50:28 2019 No.12533508 >>12533460 >widespread depression and other mental illnesses have become and especially since with all of the progress People used to kill themselves over reading Werther

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 02:33:07 2019 No.12533607 People only pretend to be moral for an agenda, while the next second will be applauding violence done against people they view as a threat to their agenda. Killing doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 04:52:07 2019 No.12533873 >>12531103 cute picture, saved

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 06:10:59 2019 No.12533998

>>12523847
okay, so after 151 posts of shit, i'll finally try to refute the manifesto.
ted's ideas weren't all new, they were mostly based on j. ellul and probably go back at least to rousseau. his view is still widely shared by dark green "deep" ecology and anprims like j. zerzan.
ted's point is mostly that technology not only makes us unhappy but also dependent/unfree. that being said, people are always dependent on their environment as they have to feed in order to survive and probably for this reason and for fun people have started to create tools in order to ease the effort required for subsistence. additionally we are social beings and want to have sex, play, communicate, produce culture and we discovered that we could ease our lot by working cooperatively. in the wake of this or even before people also generated langue, which soon took on a life of its own and culminated in mathematics, modern science and technology. today technology is used for everything. producing clothes and food, shelter and for communication. however the implementation is not steered by the general public but by private entities. what ted doesn't like about technology is not techno per se but complex constructs that require global hierarchical management and supply chains. they produce ecological devastation, human exploitation and alienation along the way.
but haven't we always already been alienated? alienation meaning anything else than total self-closeness? we have been alienated by language, by our unconscious, we are dependent on others and on nature. technology is the effort to loosen some of those dependencies and confer them on others. because of huge social constructs you are no more dependent on your tribe and because of technology you are not so dependent on nature.
of course there are many arguments to be made about who should own the means of production and the knowledge and permission to use technology, meaning intellectual property and also if technology shouldn't be a common good in order to diminish its risk of exploitation. also there are a lot of technologies which have failed to make our lives better like cars and social media, but there are others like trains and film for example that most of us wouldn't want to miss. one point i am still laboring about is the question of efficiency. machines require lots of energy and maintenance so some tasks are probably more energy efficient if we undertake them ourselves and don't automate them.
concluding i'd say ted was to "lawful" which was the nickname he was given by h. murray of the oss during this acid experiments. he was still a good American during the cold war: instead of ascribing his perceived powerlessness and dependency on capitalism, the oss or even contingent reasons like to construction of a road near his Montana cabin, which finally drove him to become a terrorist, he, because of his lack of trust in other human beings and their creations, constructed an enemy that was worthy of him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 06:24:58 2019 No.12534019 >>12524212 There is nothing wrong with this though. Dumb Frogposter

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 06:29:39 2019 No.12534028 File: 34 KB, 542x616, 1518385782011.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12531103 >burnley

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 07:27:45 2019 No.12534105

>>12524629
>2. He provides no evidence for his claim that quality of life was higher in the pre-industrial era than in the post-industrial era.

His argument is an a priori one regarding the following two premises regarding human nature:

a) Human psychological wellness requires the exercise of the power process.
b) For some humans, psychological wellness also requires a particularly autonomous exercise of the power process.

And from these two assumptions:

c) The nature of industrial/mass society means that many people in category a) will not obtain psychological wellness (ie, those who cannot find a satisfying surrogate activity).
d) The very nature of industrial/mass society necessarily makes it such that those of category b) will not obtain psychological wellness.

Thus, his argument that our quality of life is lower in the post-industrial era. Kaczynski does not believe - like Zerzan - that pre-industrial man was particularly peaceful or comfortable. Indeed, life was often nasty, brutish, and short. However, such an existence is one in which the need for autonomy and the power process is satisfied, and thus it is meaningful and one in which the human psyche is best adjusted to flourish.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 10:54:15 2019 No.12534712

>>12534105
Does he lobby for the destruction of post-industrial technology, or is that mostly his followers? I would think that if he was a proper intellectual and did not operate off of a personal feeling that he has a stake in all this, he would instead focus on the destruction of the unwell masses via automation, rather than the destruction of technology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 10:57:45 2019 No.12534721 >>12526068 aryan slav genetics

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 13:31:14 2019 No.12535341 >>12533998 shut da fuck up

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 14:42:05 2019 No.12535699 >>12534105 This. Wow. Congrats, you win for the highest-IQ and most level-headed on 4chan right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 14:44:08 2019 No.12535716 File: 2.42 MB, 4800x7200, Anti-Tech Revolution - Red Pill.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12523847 Everyone should read his two books "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution." They're incredibly good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 14:45:36 2019 No.12535726 >>12524011 This is ad hominem. It's logical fallacy 101. You do realize that every revolutionary thinker in history has had the exact same arguments leveled against them (i.e. Galileo) don;t you???

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 14:46:21 2019 No.12535733 Just a request, can you post his name in the OP so my spam filter catches it? Thanks

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 14:47:30 2019 No.12535740 >>12530437 this. lol.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 15:02:43 2019 No.12535821 >>12535716 no they aren't

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 15:07:44 2019 No.12535842 >>12535699 calm down. he just restated the first 10 pages of the manifesto using bullet points and latin words.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 15:07:57 2019 No.12535845 >>12535821 lol. then you have either a low IQ, or you haven't read them.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 15:09:57 2019 No.12535854

>>12535842
um...definitely no. Just read the first few pages of any chapter in "Anti-Tech Revolution" and you'll see why. Or read "The Truth About Primitive Life" in Technological Slavery, or "Why Reform Will Fail" --3/4 of that book are new and expand greatly on the ideas in the manifesto.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 15:16:09 2019 No.12535885 File: 37 KB, 193x266, 235.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12535845 keep telling yourself that

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 15:52:06 2019 No.12536046 >>12535699 You're just retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 16:37:35 2019 No.12536236 >>12524399 >only thing it does is show how much of a failure and how desperate you are it's like i'm reading someone's twitter feed. feeling over substance

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 16:47:57 2019 No.12536270 >>12523847 He wasn't even original. Unabomber dickriders act as though nobody else on the planet ever had similar thoughts, just because he was willing to murder and cripple people to get his manifesto published. It's pretty disgusting.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:03:20 2019 No.12536335

>>12536270
First, that's not true. the guy is extraordinarily original.

Second, you're inventing a standard of originality that you don't apply to other thinkers. By the standards you say that Kaczynski was not original, than no other thinker in the social sciences was truly original. Since all philosophy builds on, evolve, or re-articulates at least some ideas which have been adumbrated before.

Third, even if he's not "original" by your made-up, ridiculous standard, it's irreverent. He articulates ideas in powerful, lucid, and cohesive ways which other thinkers haven't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:07:01 2019 No.12536352 >>12536335 >the guy is extraordinarily original. sweetie...

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:17:53 2019 No.12536403 orgyofthewill.net is a complete objection to the philosophy of Ted Kaczynski in the most sincere and direct manner possible. Funny how that is almost never discussed on here, but Ted frequently is. It's almost like there's an agenda at work here.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:46:20 2019 No.12536538

>>12536335
I am more criticizing the fanbase rather than the Unabomber himself, but I understand I was vague and I apologize for that. From my own personal experience talking to Unabomber sympathizers, whenever they wish to talk anti-tech they seem only to regurgitate his arguments. To the point I'd say it almost seemed like they were referencing religious scripture because they did not appear to deviate much from his ideas and couldn't be persuaded to a slightly moderate position despite being made aware of their own positive experiences with technology. It's fine to be anti-tech if one so wishes, but in my own opinion it's not fine to believe in something without investigating it thoroughly. The Arrogance of Humanism for example makes arguments against technology and the worship of it as a skeleton key without necessarily suggesting we collectively go innawoods - something that would be impossible in modern society without some kind of cataclysm. It's been many years since I sat down with the manifesto so I can't say much more about the topic without having to read it again.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:53:20 2019 No.12536569

>>12536403
It makes sense that a less popular response to a popular piece of media would be less talked about.
>>12536538
You are right to an extent and people on this site don't seem to discuss things as openly as they should but what he wrote, for what reason, and how he made it seen by people is altogether a very interesting little package of history and reading

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:56:48 2019 No.12536589 >>12536403 he should blow up a building if he wants to be taken seriously

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 17:58:44 2019 No.12536597

>>12536569
>It makes sense that a less popular response to a popular piece of media would be less talked about.
And it is less popular because it goes against the grain of the agenda being pushed on the board. Philosophy is not a popularity contest. Read 251, 685, 748, 768, 772, and 783 — the arguments made are unquestionably sound, and are RIGHT, and if you give a shit at all about the philosophical discussion at hand, you can't ignore them and continue to act like Ted is right on the matter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:06:38 2019 No.12536634 >>12536597 Thats why that random website is less popular? The agenda, and not because the unabomber was a big news event involving people dying? Anyways I read 251 and regret it

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:08:00 2019 No.12536643 >>12536403 >orgyofthewill Damn man I think Ted is goofy but at least he's not a retard.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:09:29 2019 No.12536656

>>12536634
>Thats why that random website is less popular?
100%. You said it yourself, Ted is known because he used sensational media to get his point across, but the only people who pay attention to sensational media are people who don't give a rat's ass about real philosophy. People like you, who think and want to turn philosophy into a popularity / pissing contest. The very pseudo-intellectuals that he dismantles in the passages I numbered for you. Philosophy doesn't exist to comfort you, and if you think it does, you don't care about philosophy.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:14:43 2019 No.12536676

>>12536538
thank you for taking the time to clarify your thinking. respect.

My only response is that it's highly likely that many of the people "regurgitating" Kaczynski's arguments are not "regurgitating" them because they haven't comprehended the ideas, but because they're simply lazy.

Their laziness is entirely rational on the one hand: it takes a lot of time and effort to argue for extremely unpopular or controversial ideas, and even if they are successful on 4chan...who will it influence? maybe one or two people...out of 7 billion. so the effort to reward just isn't there.

on the other hand, a strong argument can be made that if you invoke unpopular or controversial material anywhere, then no matter how slim the chances are of convincing anyone, you have an intellectual duty to back up your belief in the material with at least a paragraph or two of reasoned argumentation. so i give you that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:16:28 2019 No.12536683 >>12523874 he didnt randomly mutilate people he was quite methodical and very intentional with his targets. this shaggy motherfucker isnt insane. He's in prison, not the mental institutions. His motivations like McVeigh were all political.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:23:41 2019 No.12536715

>>12530337
When enduring images like this one has to think.
First of all, should such goddesses exist, for what purpose is their aesthetic power utilised.
How can something so astoundingly gorgeous be so simultaneously entrapping.
It as if you were to build a ladder to heaven and actually find it, quantifiable in every sense, only to be unable to walk on the clouds or be recognised by its residents. Morality too be pushed aside for a moment for a purer sensationalism, instantaneous, natural reaction, only to no longer to exist. To walk back down the ladder, dismayed, cursed to live out your days on earth knowing you'll never be able to fashion something as so utterly real.
Maybe it wasn't Heaven after all, it was indeed Hell. To install perfect dreams only to wake up to an empty box- So, you're surrogate activity is now waiting to sleep, waiting to die.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:25:30 2019 No.12536724 >>12536715 Maybe if you got rid of that old 'yee yee ass haircut,' you'd get some bitches on yo dick

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:26:43 2019 No.12536729 >>12536724 I have no idea what you mean, I'll assume you're quoting some pop culture thing and move on

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:27:56 2019 No.12536736 >>12536729 You know exactly what I mean, incel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:30:13 2019 No.12536746 >>12533998 Literal retard drivel

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:40:21 2019 No.12536802 >>12536729 my haircut is fine, I style that shit everyday, neat and short. Just some nameless "bitches on yo dick" is not sustainable nor good for soul

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:41:37 2019 No.12536809 >>12536802 Yes, but you still seem to have missed out on some aspect of universal love. You long for a partner, but you're forced to express it on a Taiwanese knitting forum. You can get a gf im sure.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:54:23 2019 No.12536874

>>12536809
To be frank, I really haven't been back for a while, I mostly picked up my laptop today for some route planning and got sidetracked. What aspect of universal love am I missing out on, elaborate if you can, I'm not trying to be deliberately facetious but I assumed universal love was by definition a totality of a whole or a void.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:55:27 2019 No.12536879 >>12536874 You seem to have never embraced a women and then experienced the tragedy of waking up in an empty bed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 18:56:56 2019 No.12536889 >>12536879 You're right I haven't and I have always slept alone.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:04:14 2019 No.12536920 >>12536889 In some ways you are better off not knowing the pain of returning to sleeping alone. In some ways.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:11:05 2019 No.12536957

>>12536920
I've heard some people wish they had kept being virgins. It's an interesting perspective. Human debt, at least in my eyes, the one advantage is that making love has built up to be this divine thing, not spoilt by reality. Something to look forward to, I guess that goes first if odds are (and they look like it, high, nowadays) that you're not in love and it's tarnished.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:14:55 2019 No.12536972

>>12536957
It's not a matter of not being in love, it's a matter of expecting that love to be much more than it is. We marry now because we expect that the person we love is all we need, and the second that person is any less the ideal we have constructed begins to crumble.
Love as an expectation is flawed. It's just some ephemeral moment you either have had or have not had. By making it some divine thing, you have made it bigger than your self and therefore are destined to fail.
Love is much better when its accepted for what it is at face value. The more you look forward to it the more you've pre-destined your loves unraveling.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:24:47 2019 No.12537019
File: 32 KB, 960x196, asd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12536403
Well, that's too much to read, I only watched the first aphorisms and please, correct me If I'm wrong. Does he consider human civilization and its consequences (the birth of AI, the modification of earth surface, etc) as the ideal unfolding and expression of human will and power?

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:29:26 2019 No.12537033

>>12537019
Though Ted's argument is pretty related to this:

"892. Whoever hasn't reached a competitive level of ability in a major, serious sport (i.e. stuff like swimming and kickboxing, not golf or ping-pong) hasn't really lived—and never will........They sit in their little cubicles day and night, and flood their brains with these chemical substances, or submerge them in fake visual and aural worlds, until at last they become "addicted" to them—as of course they would, since what else do they have to do all day long?.............It's the subhuman life, it is precisely the definition of decadence, a decadence to which they are condemned—as I will never tire of repeating—because they aren't human"

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:31:27 2019 No.12537042
File: 1.59 MB, 3498x4824, dd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12536972
I cherish the wise words anon.
Despite my comments I do not wish to linger in this romantic purgatory for much longer. I will do my best to accept it at face value, I appreciate the leg up, although I have to admit, I have no idea how you do it yourself.
Have an utterly pretentious illustration, on the house

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:37:18 2019 No.12537068 >>12537042 Godspeed.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:38:23 2019 No.12537072

>>12537019
>Does he consider human civilization and its consequences (the birth of AI, the modification of earth surface, etc) as the ideal unfolding and expression of human will and power?

Keep reading. But here's a passage that is relevant:

>278. What do subhumans mean when they speak of "nature"? The subhuman is incapable of grasping that he himself is a part of nature and thus everything he does will also be natural; that to transform one part of nature to something else will only be a transformation of one kind of nature to another. Technology they view as something anti-natural, yet bird's nests they see as natural. Man's home is anti-natural but the bird's is natural. One will find countless such little stupidities if one examines closely the subhuman's conception of nature. In the end, what the subhuman calls nature is something like a national park, a park in which all animals have been sedated, are constrained from preying on each other while being kept alive by concerned groups who are doing all their killing for them (or at any rate buying the food from other people who are doing their killing for them), have lost their instincts, and every last bit of dangerous behavior they might indulge in has been labeled with warning signs, whilst the entire thing has been hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe and is being constantly scanned over by satellites and laser sensors, with giants robots ready to intervene at the whiff of the slightest anomaly in this extremely natural order of things. If the subhuman were to be left alone even for a few moments in a more natural nature — such as a pristine piece of African bush, for instance — he'd give himself a heart attack from nothing more than pure fear — and this kind of nature the subhuman would never want! What good is nature if one can't conduct regularly scheduled tours in it? Thus reasons the subhuman. What good is nature that is not exploitable? That is not picturesque? That is dangerous? — to the subhuman himself as well as to anything that dwells in it. — Nature is a concept as inaccessible to the subhuman as power.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:41:36 2019 No.12537082 Damn ted was a decently handsome guy

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 19:55:41 2019 No.12537145

>>12537072
This clearly goes against Ted's reasoning:

>The subhuman is incapable of grasping that he himself is a part of nature and thus everything he does will also be natural; that to transform one part of nature to something else will only be a transformation of one kind of nature to another. Technology they view as something anti-natural, yet bird's nests they see as natural. Man's home is anti-natural but the bird's is natural. One will find countless such little stupidities if one examines closely the subhuman's conception of nature.

But the rest of the paragraph is not very far from Ted's analysis. The guy of that page seems to be a "nietzschean". Both Ted and Nietzsche share the idea of last man.

> In the end, what the subhuman calls nature is something like a national park, a park in which all animals have been sedated, are constrained from preying on each other while being kept alive by concerned groups who are doing all their killing for them (or at any rate buying the food from other people who are doing their killing for them), have lost their instincts, and every last bit of dangerous behavior they might indulge in has been labeled with warning signs, whilst the entire thing has been hermetically sealed off from the rest of the universe and is being constantly scanned over by satellites and laser sensors, with giants robots ready to intervene at the whiff of the slightest anomaly in this extremely natural order of things

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 20:18:09 2019 No.12537231 >>12536589 he should jack off to cunny anime and refuse to have sex with trans women if he wants that

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 20:48:33 2019 No.12537339 >>12533374 >The Elite are fucking miserable You can see it in the nihilistic and degenerate art they bring to the world. Compare that to the paintings and cathedrals funded by rich patrons centuries ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 20:48:46 2019 No.12537341 >>12523847 >tfw I started reading it last night and have it open in another tab right now

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 20:50:42 2019 No.12537349

WHY THE FUCK are these threads always filled with just-slightly-above-average IQ pseuds repeating ad nauseam "LOL JUST GO LIVE IN THE WOODS IF YOU DONT LIKE TECHNOLOGY HAHA ITS THAT SIMPLE". Maybe if the thread started about Ellul or Linkola I could understand the ignorance but it's always Ted K right up there in the OP picture. Do you know what set the MKUltra lab rat off in the first place? HE TRIED TO RUN AWAY INTO THE WOODS. He lived in a middle of fucking nowhere and do you know what happened? They built a road right through the middle of his favorite spot. You can't run away from civilization, it will keep expanding at an exponential rate. There's nowhere left to run, opposition is the only answer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 20:54:08 2019 No.12537369 >>12537349 this. refreshingly candid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 20:57:26 2019 No.12537383 >>12533460 Jean Francois Gariepy wrote the defining biological work of the century on this topic but he will be ignored because he's an autistic internet sperg who fucks retards

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:01:49 2019 No.12537400 >>12537349 Ted's argument was more nuanced than just running off into the trees, sure. But it's also the most common and simple expression of his arguments that I hear whenever I talk to people that believe in his ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:06:10 2019 No.12537418 >>12537072 >The bird's nest and the all encompassing AI are on the same spectrum therefore they are the same

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:12:11 2019 No.12537442 >>12524011 >First of all, credibility matters. For proving the argument right? Are you fucked?

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:16:46 2019 No.12537464

>>12537145
>But the rest of the paragraph is not very far from Ted's analysis. The guy of that page seems to be a "nietzschean". Both Ted and Nietzsche share the idea of last man.
This is a very basic reading. You have to read a ton more before attempting to draw this type of conclusion. This is also not his only website; he owns culture.vg and authors the essays there.

>>12537418
Here's a passage for you:

>768. The Amish vs. technology. But clothing etc. is technology too. Everything beyond living naked in the woods like animals is technology — even fire. So until the Amish go off naked into caves eating raw meat we have to say that their claim of technology being evil is bullshit: at best an idiocy (not knowing what the word means), at worst hypocrisy. And to say "technology is evil past a certain point" requires a definition of that point, which no one has ever attempted to provide because everyone instinctively understands that any attempt to draw a line here would be beyond stupid, so stupid that even the person who drew the line would laugh at the absurdity of it ("Motorcycles are ok but cars aren't!"). So the only tenable viewpoint is the exact opposite one: technology is good — all of it. So the need for arbitrary lines — and for the hypocrisy of pretending they exist while no one is willing to talk about them — vanishes. Amish therefore only possible inside a powerful nation that tolerates them as freak show and clown spectacle. In every other era the Amish would have become slaves faster than you could say "slave". Their way of life is predicated on America's fighter jets and thermonuclear submarines, i.e. you guessed it: on technology. And as time goes by to more and more advanced technology, since it is only by staying at the cutting edge of it perpetually that the US military can guarantee the Amish's freedom. Of course they themselves can't read this analysis because they don't use electricity, or computers. Eventually they'll be unable to read anything since printed books will disappear. They are already uncivilized, but at that point they'll become truly savage. A herd of savage sheep: the kind of freaks made possible only in the warm, pacified heartlands and swamplands of an advanced civilization.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:27:56 2019 No.12537490 >>12535341 >>12536746 these are both outstanding arguments

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:39:30 2019 No.12537525 >>12537464 I admit that the conclusion about last man was presumptuous but the idea is something that Ted would say. That's basically his worst nightmare.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:40:59 2019 No.12537530

>>12537400
No, people who support his arguments would prefer to live innawoods but know that doing that is no long-term solution. What's frustrating are the stupid fucking niggers that plague any threads like these screaching their mantra "WELL IF YOU DONT WANT TO LIVE IN A TECHNO-DYSTOPIA LIKE ME YOU CAN JUST GO LIVE IN THE WOODS HAHA WHATS THE PROBLEM?" as if that's an actual fucking solution. Moving into the woods isn't a solution, nobody who's supportive of Ted K's ideas thinks that way, it's always the idiots who have never read him, who know nothing about him, who don't think anything they say all the way through spewing their half-baked shit. "If you don't like technological civilization then don't live in it" isn't a fucking answer to anything anybody has said here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 21:45:06 2019 No.12537544 >>12537530 this.

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:59:35 2019 No.12538081
File: 343 KB, 1600x900, Being There Closing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12534712
Sorry for the long reply.

>Does he lobby for the destruction of post-industrial technology, or is that mostly his followers?

I really don't know. I don't think that's a concern - he's not really a theorist as to post-collapse states. Mostly he focuses on destroying the present order and why this should be done, and merely argues that such problems reemerging again are to be tackled by the generations that confront them anew.

>I would think that if he was a proper intellectual and did not operate off of a personal feeling that he has a stake in all this

He's never had a pretence of being a 'proper intellectual', imo. He's quite open that he himself is motivated because he is one of those people who fall into premise b in the prev post.

>he would instead focus on the destruction of the unwell masses via automation, rather than the destruction of technology.

If I think I'm correctly interpreting you, you're suggesting his scope is too broad; his target should not be technology as a whole, but merely those types of technology that rob people of their ability to exercise the power process and be autonomous agents.

This is a good point. However, it is the case that most complex technology does require a massive degree of economic and technical infrastructure that necessarily involves the hyper-intensive division of labour; ie, non-autonomous agents who also will require remuneration of base needs as they will lack the and energy to feed/cloth themselves (and thus rely on their industrial labour as a surrogate activity).

And once such a system is in place, it is hard to prevent those in the top 20% of the Pareto distribution consolidating their gains through institutions and processes that further contribute to automation and industrial complexity.

In truth, I think the only hope that doesn't involve a violent insurrectionist anarchy that necessitates the Crucifixion of tech nerds is through creating a frontier for those who can't find surrogate activities or require autonomy to apply themselves. Ironically, Kaczynski inadvertently seems to provide for me one of the best arguments there is for space colonisation - it's the only non-destructive release valve for advanced mass societies in the face of the immense psychological duress they generate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:36:02 2019 No.12538204 >>12523847 Is that Elvis?

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:41:38 2019 No.12538421

>>12538081
>Kaczynski inadvertently seems to provide for me one of the best arguments there is for space colonization

Then I don't think you've fully thought through the implications of the manifesto, and especially his second book "Anti-Tech Revolution" and the chapter about why the technological system will destroy itself.

"Space colonization" is a pipe dream. If technology were ever advanced to the point were what people envision as "space colonization" is possible, than there won't be humanity as we know it and there likely wont be life remaining on earth. Competition among self-propagating systems operating under natural selection guarantees this.

Why would systems bother exploring space if it doesn't give them an advantage vis-a-vis natural selection? Why would competing systems waste resources and energy on transporting humans when robots or AI or other tech would be more efficient? Etc. The space program of the 20th century largely acted as propaganda for the masses to gain widespread acceptance of the technological world-view, an especially important task given the massive disruption in society and quality of life that the growth of technology requires. The propaganda bases itself on archetypal mythologies (i.e. the conquest of continents by the Renaissance Europeans, or the conquest of city-states by the Greeks etc. etc.). Moreover, to some extent the space race and the current exploration of space allows for research and development that aid systems in their competition for power among themselves. For example, public imagination of space is necessary for public funding of rocketry, and public funding of rocketry aided competing systems in their ruthless quest for power-advantage in satellite communications, high speed transportation, telecommunication etc. etc. But recent technological developments, and cultural developments (caused by modernization) have made it such that space is no longer as important as it once was for system's quests to increase their power and advantage over each other. This is one reason why we haven't been to the moon in 40+ years.

You have to understand the "space colonization" concept in its broader context. the space exploration fantasy is an extrapolation of humanity's civilizational conquest mythology onto a present day technology obsessed value system. For example, Star Trek--an embodiment of the space exploration fantasy-- is essentially Horatio Hornblower (the creator of Star Trek admits this), an 18th century sailing legend with ancient themes set in a world of values and priorities that modern industrial people can empathize with.

But once you pile on all the requirements people need to live fulfilling and dignified lives, you come to the realization that humans are deeply embedded, physically and psychologically, in the complex web of life on earth that has evolved over the course of millions of years. The "space exploration" scenario requires another earth!

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:49:44 2019 No.12538448 >>12524011 He pulls almost all of his arguments from other philosophers, such as Ellul who is beyond reproach in terms of credibility. He just brought them to public attention. Terrible argument on your end either way though

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:51:50 2019 No.12538454 >>12524694 >Woah now that the ad hominem is directed at me it's not an argument!

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:59:27 2019 No.12538473 >>12524011 the thing is fucking 50 pages lmao even just reading the first paragraphs should tell you if it's bullshit or not depending on the writing style

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:08:17 2019 No.12538498

>>12538421
>If technology were ever advanced to the point were what people envision as "space colonization" is possible
It's been possible for at least 80 years now.

The economy is the problem, not the tech or the know-how. If we had an economy that was focused on the well being of people and not banks we'd have hundreds of orbiting space colonies by now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:17:44 2019 No.12538532 >>12524324 good basedboy never rebel

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:20:04 2019 No.12538536

>>12538498
false. the arrangement of our economy is determined by our current level of technology. capitalism and rapacious banking etc. are ascendant because under current technological conditions, those social arrangements best promote the growth of technology. The social systems that employ the arrangements that best promote their survival and power in the short term expand at the expense of those that compromise for the sake of long-term or ethical considerations.

What is observed in biology among the competition for survival among self-propagating systems holds true for the survival among self-propagating social systems.

One day capitalism may be replaced, but if it is it will be a social system that evolves organically because it is better at surviving in the new technological environment that arises, not because of human will. The world system as it exists today may be replaced by a world-wide artificial intelligence grid where everything is perfectly ordered and everyone has a healthy hobby or is plugged into some sort of matrix, while people who have a "problem" with the new world will be "cured." But this Brave New World will not arise out of choice, but out of evolution. It will be beyond human control, just as is the development of society in general--beyond rational control.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:38:49 2019 No.12538583
File: 532 KB, 1280x1008, Spacecolony3edit.jpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12538421
>If technology were ever advanced to the point were what people envision as "space colonization" is possible

The technology exists. The problem is capital investment and a coherent vision for claiming space, or the lack thereof.

>Why would systems bother exploring space if it doesn't give them an advantage vis-a-vis natural selection? Why would competing systems waste resources and energy on transporting humans when robots or AI or other tech would be more efficient?

You make an excellent point; the system has no interest in manned space settlements - they're inefficient for its purposes. Despite the existence for decades the technology that would enable cheap bulk material transportation (see Truax's Sea Dragon rocket design from the 60s), the construction of artificial habitats that would reflect Earth's conditions perfectly (Gerard O'Neil's "O'Neil Cylinders" from the 70s), and access to in-situ materials (see the work of Zubrin in the 80s on fuel acquisition from stellar bodies), government and large business has failed to invest into a coherent space project because it is so costly and it promises no profit to the system. That the only hope for space colonisation has emerged in the past decade as the result of ego projects of billionaires is telling; the frontier's allure is in its fulfilment of psychological needs, not 'rational' or fiscal motives.

This is precisely why I phrased space colonisation as a rebellion against the system in the post you replied to.

>You have to understand the "space colonization" concept in its broader context. the space exploration fantasy is an extrapolation of humanity's civilizational conquest mythology onto a present day technology obsessed value system.

This is irrelevant to the proposition I raised. I am stating that the only hope to create an outlet for the power process is a frontier, and the only frontier sans the razing of civilisation (which is impossible), is the development of space.

>But once you pile on all the requirements people need to live fulfilling and dignified lives, you come to the realization that humans are deeply embedded, physically and psychologically, in the complex web of life on earth that has evolved over the course of millions of years. The "space exploration" scenario requires another earth!

We can make a good stab of replicating it. See the aforementioned O'Neil cylinders (pic related), which would allow for the creation of low-population density environments that can replicate a biome of life on Earth. These can easily be constructed and occupied by groups of a number of people equal to or smaller than Dunbar's number.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:56:23 2019 No.12538623

>>12538536
>the arrangement of our economy is determined by our current level of technology
We've had debt based economics for thousands of years. Your concept is severely flawed.

>The world system as it exists today may be replaced by a world-wide artificial intelligence grid
You've read a lot of dogshit pop science. Technology is not exponential.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:20:36 2019 No.12538678

>>12523886
Actually the ideas articulated are neither thoughtful or prescient. They are extremely self serving.
>hurdur academics are not smart.
That´s far from a brilliant claim and in actuality that´s not unique to academics at all, but to little ted that´s what matters - because he was an myopic idiot and not that smart or prescient at all. Sorry bby

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:28:22 2019 No.12538687 >>12538678 >bash the fash lulz what a waste of your time.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:29:15 2019 No.12538690

>>12538583
>We can make a good stab of replicating it. See the aforementioned O'Neil cylinders (pic related), which would allow for the creation of low-population density environments that can replicate a biome of life on Earth. These can easily be constructed and occupied by groups of a number of people equal to or smaller than Dunbar's number.

No we can't, and our attempts to replicate another earth would require an astronomical growth in technology which would inevitably lead to destruction of the biosphere. Competition for survival of competing self-propagating systems for near term advantage would rip the natural systems that have evolved over millions of years apart.

It would be FAR FAR FAR easier, and less risky to just let our industrial civilization collapse.

Your thought process is so alien to me I am struggling to understand how you could possibly think as you do. Why on earth do you care so much about reconciling the anti-humanist critique of technology with technology? I think it has a lot to do with Kaczynski's observation in the first chapter of "Anti-Tech Revolution":

"...How can they possibly
believe that schemes like theirs will ever be carried out in the real world?
Are they totally devoid of any practical sense about human affairs? Maybe.
But a more likely explanation is unwittingly offered by Naomi Klein herself:
“[I]t is always easier to deny reality than to watch your worldview get
shattered… .” The worldview of most members of the upper middle class,
including most intellectuals, is deeply dependent on the existence of a thoroughly
organized, culturally “advanced,” large-scale society characterized by
a high level of social order. It would be extremely difficult psychologically
for such people to recognize that the only way to get off the road to disaster
that we are now on would be through a total collapse of organized society
and therefore a descent into chaos. So they cling to any scheme, however
unrealistic, that promises to preserve the society on which their lives and
their worldview are dependent; and one suspects that the threat to their
worldview is more important to them than the threat to their lives."

--"Anti-Tech Revolution" (2016) p. 33

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:32:32 2019 No.12538694 >>12538678 please give specific examples

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:44:06 2019 No.12538731

>>12538583
>razing of civilisation (which is impossible),
That's probably true, but Kaczynski agrees with this. Civilization rests at its base on a simple, individual-dependant level of technology and there is no practical way of forcing everyone to abandon simple individual-made tools like plows or wheels.

But industrial civilization is a whole other matter. It rests at its base on organization-dependant technology, and as soon as the social system underpinning the organization brakes down, the technology breaks down with it. When Rome collapsed, it's advanced organization-dependant technology was lost for nearly a thousand years. The more complicated the system, the harder the fall in collapse. For industrial civilization, post-breakdown, it is also very unlikely that it could be rebuild because to grow an industrial civilization must evolve carefully in stages on top of natural resources and the ability to exploit those resources. But after the collapse of our modern industrial civilization, there will be very little raw material left that could be practically exploited at the necessary scale needed to advance industrial civilization. The was the opinion of Fred Hoyle. Destruction is FAR easier than construction. And nature takes its course. the biosphere slowly heals itself over hundreds of years.

civilization will always be around, but as scattered pocked among wilderness, much as pre-industrial civilization existed for thousands of years..

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:54:19 2019 No.12538756

>>12538583
And industrial civilization is a far more tightly-coupled and inter-dependant system than pre-industrial civilization. Any significant disruption in one aspect of the system can easily lead to a cascade collapse. a disruption in one area, such as a nuclear bomb, could lead to a global economic and industrial collapse.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 04:56:33 2019 No.12538883

>>12538690
>No we can't, and our attempts to replicate another earth would require an astronomical growth in technology which would inevitably lead to destruction of the biosphere

So you basically failed to read my post, which showed that this is is not the case and that the technology exists, that the only difficulty is a lack of capital/willpower for such a project?

>Your thought process is so alien to me I am struggling to understand how you could possibly think as you do.

The fact that you can't read the content of my post may have something to do with it.

>Why on earth do you care so much about reconciling the anti-humanist critique of technology with technology? I think it has a lot to do with Kaczynski's observation in the first chapter of "Anti-Tech Revolution":

I think it's more likely that you're just a simpleton who can only think in terms of Manichean distinctions between 'technology' and 'anti-technology' rather than the ultimate concerns that fuelled Kaczynski's concerns. I've stated outright that the artificial habitats are feasible technologically, so your argument from there on in rests on a bad faith reading (backed by scientific/engineering illiteracy).

I've made my rationale clear. If you wish to engage with specific premises rather than showing yourself to be a community-college tier phil dropout by engaging in psychological conjecture or ignoring my technical points, I'll engage with you. Otherwise, don't bother.

>>12538731
>>12538756
I think the problem is that even challenging organisation-dependent technology is going to rest on an opportunity presenting itself for an insurgency (as Kaczynski himself stressed). Is that moment here or coming? Maybe. But I would not wish to gamble on it, and thus it seems that the best alternative is to seek to create a permanent frontier where the autonomous and empowered individual can exist. The contraction may not come: we should take that into account.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 07:19:58 2019 No.12539285 >>12524011 you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 09:17:53 2019 No.12539717 >tfw neuronormies are arguing again must feel bad knowing you're unable to create anything or believe in something. Empty shells

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 11:47:43 2019 No.12540285

>>12538421
>present day technology obsessed value system
I can't believe you've misunderstood the value system of the society you live in to this degree. We aren't obsessed with technology — we're obsessed with power, which technology enhances in us. And we have ALWAYS been obsessed with power as a species.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 15:14:22 2019 No.12541327
File: 1.44 MB, 374x216, 6833.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12537033
>They sit in their little cubicles day and night, and flood their brains with these chemical substances, or submerge them in fake visual and aural worlds, until at last they become "addicted" to them—as of course they would, since what else do they have to do all day long?.............It's the subhuman life, it is precisely the definition of decadence, a decadence to which they are condemned—as I will never tire of repeating—because they aren't human
sounds like that guy has no empathy, who is he trying to save even

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 15:22:20 2019 No.12541377 >praises Kaczynski >still uses 4chan after it has been turned into 4channel Bet you have a really cool edgy twitter account as well, how many edgy pictures of factories burning down have you shared?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 15:24:04 2019 No.12541385 Was he right about everything?

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 15:26:03 2019 No.12541394

>>12541377
Um I can criticize the system while still living in it and not actually doing anything to try and change it. Ted was really smart so if you try to talk shit I'll just tell you to read a book. My inability to even regurgitate his arguments in a succinct manner is more evidence of his genius.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 15:31:35 2019 No.12541427

>>12541394
I understand the point of propagating a viewpoint you support across communication channels that you fundamentally dislike to convert more people to your view, but when one major aspect of this view is to escape from these influences you might as well shoot-and-scoot when it comes to spreading your ideology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 17:22:45 2019 No.12542027 >>12541427 ???

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 18:42:08 2019 No.12542496 >>12542027 you're gay lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 20:21:34 2019 No.12543067 >>12541377 >eco activist >dislikes polluted air >fights for it cleanliness >still breathing bad air LOL he must have been stop breathing edgy faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 20:32:23 2019 No.12543146 >>12543067 >air >if you don't breathe it you die >4chan >if you don't use it your life significantly improves, less energy is consumed, more time to do ecoterrorism you're a big brain

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 20:34:53 2019 No.12543169 >>12543146 my life haven't changed with or without 4chan, even the opposite, it helps me to stay socially connected while I'm socially isolated irl. You're not a very big brain, aren't you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 20:39:17 2019 No.12543204 >>12543169 >it helps me to stay socially connected while I'm socially isolated irl oh no, he fell for the simulated social (you) box meme. >he also immediately defended his lame surrogate activity

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 20:58:43 2019 No.12543323

>>12543204
>oh no, he fell for the simulated social (you) box meme.
so what?
>he also immediately defended his lame surrogate activity
>implying
It's not very clever of you to think that you can live in the modern world without doing any surrogate activities. I try to minimize it instead. Thanks to the world, I'm not able to socialize outside, because outside there is almost no one around. It does not mean I'm not looking for an escape, though. Does it salt your eyes, sweetie?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:04:09 2019 No.12543344 >>12543323 No? You're just pretty stupid and compared a necessary function to 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:07:37 2019 No.12543362 >>12543344 >you're just pretty stupid It's a very reasonable argument. Exactly what I've expected from (you). Pathetic though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:15:09 2019 No.12543397 File: 37 KB, 482x682, pepe business.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12543362 >he still insists that 4chan and twitter have the same importance as air

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:35:55 2019 No.12543490 >>12524212 This but unironically

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:36:57 2019 No.12543504 >>12524299 >murder cant be an act of reason >what are ideological wars Kill yourself basedboy

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:37:33 2019 No.12543508 >>12543490 Big one is he's a european nostalgic for the 1950s.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 21:47:07 2019 No.12543554 >>12524444 .t numale

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:18:22 2019 No.12544223 File: 23 KB, 370x370, heidegger smug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12537072 >not knowing the difference between Hervorbringen and Herausfordern Heh, what a pleb

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:21:15 2019 No.12544233 >>12543397 comparison with air is exaggerate, but it shows you what's your problem, my sweet pepe poster, i.e pathetic gatekeeping and narrow thinking by judging people of the domain they use. You better commit sudoku.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:22:42 2019 No.12544239 >>12524029 >He could have made something of himself but he did

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:25:09 2019 No.12544245
File: 67 KB, 998x765, heidi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12537464
>And to say "technology is evil past a certain point" requires a definition of that point, which no one has ever attempted to provide because everyone instinctively understands that any attempt to draw a line here would be beyond stupid, so stupid that even the person who drew the line would laugh at the absurdity of it ("Motorcycles are ok but cars aren't!").
Nope, never read a word of ol' Marty.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:32:59 2019 No.12544279 >>12544245 Heidegger was a hack

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:33:06 2019 No.12544281 >>12541377 Ted himself talked about having to use technology for the purpose of communicating the dangers of technology. You'd know that had you read anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:34:43 2019 No.12544287 >>12544279 >t. tried to jump into Being and Time once and got stuck in the introduction

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:35:33 2019 No.12544290

>>12544239
exactly this. The guy wrote the most important manifesto of all time, and the most lucid, cohesive and direct.

He furthermore became the youngest professor in the history of UC Berkeley mathematics, solved groundbreaking problems at the very frontier of mathematical knowledge. There, conventional aspirations achieved.

Then he went off to live a self sufficient life in the wilderness for more than 20 years singlehandedly--achieving what thoreau and thousands of other wilderness lovers failed to achieve.

Then he launched the most impressive terror campaign in terror history, evading the combined forces of the most advanced governmental apparatus for nearly 20 years until the brother he loved and trusted ratted him out.

Then, behind the walls of the worlds most isolated prison ADX, also known as the "alcatraz of the rockies" he has written more than 90 BOXES of material and corresponded with thousands of people all over the world on anthropology, history, and revolutionary theory among other topics.
culminating in the writing and publication of two full length non-fiction books which are extraordinary and are favorably reviewed by respectable sources.

Think of this: from behind the walls of the worls most isolated prison, the most radical anti-technology thinker has written a book which was highly praised by MIT students of all people. Ask yourself, has there been anything like this in your living memory?

"Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is Kaczynski’s well-reasoned, cohesive composition about how revolutionary groups should approach our mercurial future….. I recommend that you read this compelling perspective on how we can frame our struggles in a technological society."
-- The Tech, MIT's oldest and largest newspaper

So, he made the absolute most of himself...just not according to the standards of the society he rejected as evil and leading to the destruction of humanity and the biosphere.

He didn't stay in his cubicle writing books and giving lectures and collecting awards and buying nice cars and houses and taking family vacations

lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:37:10 2019 No.12544297 >>12544287 >stuck dropped*

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:42:27 2019 No.12544325 >>12544290 absolutely based and redpilled

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:47:02 2019 No.12544345 >>12544290 >autistic mathematician (redundancy I know) goes on autistic rampage >praise him for this Want to know how I know that you're autistic as well?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 04:26:21 2019 No.12544958 >>12544345 Uncle Ted's an uncommonly motivated schizoid or schizotypal though, not autistic at all.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature