/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16330170]

Was David Kaczynski just salty because his brother was the superior Kaczynski? Was that the reason for his betrayal? Any lit on traitors?

[Anonymous No.16330186]

>>16330170
>superior Kaczynski

[Anonymous No.16330205]

>>16330170
Both are fags and pseuds, picrel is the superior Kaczynski
>celibate
>possibly homosexual
>very well read
>rightist cultural policy + leftist economic policy = ultimate /lit/ mix
>basically updated Carl Schmitt's ideas to fit the conditions of 21st century and implemented them

[Anonymous No.16330251]

>>16330186
>less handsome Kaczynski
>less based Kaczynski
>less deadly Kaczynski
What a terrible take.

[Anonymous No.16330255]

>>16330205
>leftist economic policy
That is the one thing leftists have NEVER been right about.

[Anonymous No.16330292]

>>16330170
Ted looked like a fucking CHAD wtf what went wrong?

[Anonymous No.16330323]

>>16330292
He became aware

[Anonymous No.16330359]

>>16330292
>wtf what went wrong?
Nothing

[Anonymous No.16330404]

I think is brother was on a vacation high in paris and was feeling emotional. I just love paris, oh my this is all happening so fast.

[Anonymous No.16330486]

>>16330404
what's happening?

[Anonymous No.16330582]

>>16330292
He was autistic, then he got MK ULTRA'd on top of that
>>16330404
>>16330170
Maybe, just maybe, David snitched on his brother not because he was jealous or emotional, but because Ted was a serial killer?

[Anonymous No.16330601]

>>16330582
>David snitched on his brother not because he was jealous or emotional, but because Ted was a serial killer?
Do you know the word loyalty, fucktard?
It would have been even better if he stopped him himself rather than snitching him to the enemy.

[Anonymous No.16330619]

>>16330601
You owe no loyality to serial killers.
>It would have been even better if he stopped him himself rather than snitching him to the enemy
No, since he could have failed. By calling the police he saved many lives, and brought justice for many dead and maimed people. David is a positive example.

[Anonymous No.16330621]

>>16330359
this. nothing. everything went as right as can be.

[Anonymous No.16330627]

>>16330582
false, TK being MK Ultra'd is just a stupid myth by the way.

[Anonymous No.16330633]

>>16330619
Ok, it get's obvious now

[Anonymous No.16330639]

>>16330486
David realized his brother was the serial bomber while on vacation in Paris. I'm merely making fun of Americans who become intoxicated by Paris and make stupid decisions.

>>16330582
Yeah duh. Why would anyone harbor a serial killer? David had no political allegiances to Ted.

[Anonymous No.16330644]

>>16330621
the only thing that went wrong is that he doesn't have a successor.

[Anonymous No.16330655]

>>16330639
>David had no political allegiances to Ted.
He has blood alliance to him. Do anglos really don't get it?

[Anonymous No.16330657]

>>16330292
everything went right. being "civilized" is a state of neurosis.

[Anonymous No.16330662]

>>16330633
You really think my take is controversial?
Lmao, this nigga would have covered for Ted Bundy, had he been his brother

[Anonymous No.16330672]

>>16330655
>dude I swear i couldnt snitch on my pedophilic predator brother, we share some DNA after all!
The absolute level of this board

[Anonymous No.16330697]

>>16330672
Ted was doing the world a favor, though. If you or anyone in your family ever loses his job because of A.I., you can thank David Kaczynski for it.

[Anonymous No.16330712]

>>16330662
Why should I stab my own family in the back you monumental retard? Just because he did something the bible or the man made law says is wrong? How sheepish are you?

[Anonymous No.16330714]

>>16330255
*laughs in lowest unemployment in Poland since economic transformation*

[Anonymous No.16330717]

>>16330697
Ted did me no favour by killing and maiming people who had no power over thr system he was criticizing. If anything, his retarded actions made his cause even more unpopular: it wasn't even a good strategy
>>16330712
Lmao you would have really covered for Ted Bundy. Wow

[Anonymous No.16330722]

>>16330255
What do you mean? The leftist countries are the ones thriving right now, and America reached its economic peak when it was at its furthest left.

[Anonymous No.16330731]

>>16330712
why would you cover for someone just because they're family? just because your mom shit both of you out?

[Anonymous No.16330732]

>>16330697
Ted's ideas are deemed more radical and less approachable because of his actions.

[Anonymous No.16330735]

>>16330722
>America reached its economic peak when it was at its furthest left.

Assuredly, no one is this dumb.

[Anonymous No.16330749]

>>16330717
>Lmao you would have really covered for Ted Bundy. Wow
No, I wouldn't you idiot. I would take action myself and involve people I trust and we would solve the problem together. Not run to the state like an obedient bitch.

[Anonymous No.16330754]

>>16330731
Ted had a reason, though. He wasn't killing just because. Maybe ask the guy before ruining his project. If my brother was killing dangerous people I wouldn't give a shit. Fucking normfags.

[Anonymous No.16330755]

>>16330205
Kaczyzm is based and stupid wypokeks only seethe because they are liberal faggots

[Anonymous No.16330763]

>>16330735
Are you stupid? It was at its most left economically in the 40s and 50s, when the economy was the strongest. This isn't really debatable.

[Anonymous No.16330765]

>>16330731
What do you have, when you don't have family? That's the one thing that stays to the end.

[Anonymous No.16330778]

>>16330755
zbazowany i zczerwonopigułkowany (ang. based and redpilled)

[Anonymous No.16330790]

>>16330749
Are you 11?

[Anonymous No.16330800]

>>16330754
He was killing just because, the people he murdered and maimed did not help AT ALL his cause, in fact it hindered it for decades.

[Anonymous No.16330807]

>>16330790

[Anonymous No.16330838]

>>16330807

[Anonymous No.16330860]

>>16330662
>>16330639
>>16330619
Traitors and state worshipers belong in Reddit, or the 9th Circle of Hell.

[Anonymous No.16330881]

>>16330860
Yeah sure, God will send me to Hell because I called the police on a serial killer who happened to be my brother. Great theological insight

[Anonymous No.16331010]

>>16330186
my name is Kurczynski what now

[Anonymous No.16331047]

>>16330800
false.

[Anonymous No.16331261]

>>16330292
>what went wrong?
It all went perfectly

[Anonymous No.16331282]

>>16330800
You never would have heard of Ted or his ideas most likely if not for the bombings

[Anonymous No.16331366]

>>16331282
And thus you admitted his ideas are weak.

[Anonymous No.16331392]

>>16331366
>if it's not popular and mainstream, that means it's weak
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.16331417]

>>16330205
>>16330755
yikes

[Anonymous No.16331451]

>>16330170
damn my nigga ted was a pretty boy

[Anonymous No.16331473]

>>16330619
calling the police saved zero lives whatsoever

[Anonymous No.16331488]

>>16331473
It stopped Ted from killing and maiming other innocent people.

[Anonymous No.16331491]

>>16330205
based and law&justicepilled

[Anonymous No.16331492]

>>16330800
this is blatantly untrue lol

[Anonymous No.16331845]

>>16330722
>The leftist countries are the ones thriving right now
like?

[Anonymous No.16331855]

>>16331488
>other innocent people.
no such thing. and certainly not the ones that got kaczynski'd.

[Anonymous No.16331925]

>>16331488
He was done with killing after his article was published.

[Anonymous No.16332293]

>>16330627
are you fucking dumb? he underwent weird psychological experiments while in college. That shit defenitly fucked him up.

[Anonymous No.16332315]

>>16332293
it's utterly false, and it's a shame you bought into it.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unabomber-agrees-me-inaccuracy-discovery-channel-series-greg-stejskal

you can get the transcripts of the interview at harvard from the university of michigan. they show his experience was completely ordinary. there is a lot more evidence to show this is just a myth.

This conspiracy theory was started by an irresponsible journalist name Alston Chase, who simply speculated about it, without any evidence.

[Anonymous No.16332370]

>>16330800

The point was not the killing it never is
It would be foolish to think that any one person could really change the world purely through killing for it's own sake
Violence is just a tool used to fully illustrate the commitment to ones motivations
The point was to show people how even an old and simple system could be used for destruction because of society's trust and reliance on it and he was proven correct in this regard many times since then

[Anonymous No.16332399]

>>16331491
Is this Ted's brother who rated him?
I would never in a milion year betray my familly. I will always back my brothers.

What a fucking bitch. I hope he goes to hell and rot.

[Anonymous No.16332421]

>>16332399
No, pic rel is the BACKSTABBING RAT.

[Anonymous No.16332442]

>>16332421
Who can ever trust this rat? Does he have close contacts? I wouldn't want anything to do with him.

[Anonymous No.16332455]

>>16332442
>David Kaczynski received a $1 million reward posted by the FBI for the Unabomber's capture.
He sold his own family. Absolute state of this cunt.

[Anonymous No.16332511]

>>16330619
he had already stopped

[Anonymous No.16333082]

>>16332511
>>16331925
Yeah, let's trust the serial killer. There is no way that someone as mentally ill as Ted could have ever changed his mind

[Anonymous No.16333100]

>>16333082
not a "serial killer" and not "mentally ill" so you're 0/2.

Do you think maybe it's possible your opinion of Kaczynski is formed more from media propaganda than concrete evidence? This is a serious question.

[Anonymous No.16333102]

>>16333082
You hypocritical retard, the entity he ratted his own brother to kills people on the daily basis. They literally don't go a single day without killing people.

[Anonymous No.16333117]

>>16333100
Not that guy, but how is he not a serial killer?

[Anonymous No.16333119]

>>16332455
>familial bonds should be above anything else
ape

[Anonymous No.16333132]

>>16330655
They aren't Anglos.They're Slavs. But yeah, unfortunately many of us Anglos do not understand the importance of blood.

[Anonymous No.16333135]

>>16333117
Oh no he is listed here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims

[Anonymous No.16333141]

>>16333102
In this case they did good. Kinda like asking help from a mobster in order to stop an active pedophile. Doing so does not entail that you support organized crime.
>>16333100
I'm 2/2, he's by definition both mentally ill and a serial killer.
>Do you think maybe it's possible your opinion of Kaczynski is formed more from media propaganda than concrete evidence? This is a serious question
My opinion is shaped by the actual facts of his life, namely that he killed 3 people and injured 23 other people.


Do you think maybe it's possible your opinion of Kaczynski is formed more from Tedposters' propaganda than concrete evidence? This is a serious question

[Anonymous No.16333144]

>>16330860
BS i am looking out for God's creation

[Anonymous No.16333154]

>>16333132
I think he means the general mindset of the English-speakers from the Anglosphere, rather than Ted's family's accurate ethnicity.

[Anonymous No.16333155]

>>16333117
let's back up for a minute.

Is there a difference between a terrorist and a serial killer?

Is a person who kills more than one person necessarily a serial killer?

Is a soldier who kills more than one enemy soldier a "serial killer"?

Would it be appropriate for the enemy nation to describe the soldier who killed more than one of their own soldiers a "serial killer"?

Does the term "serial killer" carry with it any implications beyond killing more than one person?

Is it possible the media would misuse the term for propaganda, politically-correct, or otherwise misleading purposes?

[Anonymous No.16333163]

>>16333141
so by your own definition, an allied soldier who killed 3 nazi's in WWII is mentally ill and a serial killer?

[Anonymous No.16333171]

>>16333135
a wikipedia page means nothing when it comes to something this controversial. the term 'serial killer" can easily be misapplied due to bias, and the majority of people have bias against Kaczynski.

[Anonymous No.16333175]

>>16333119
Correct. And in this case it wasn't worth betraying him. He simply ratted on his own blood for nothing.

[Anonymous No.16333193]

>>16333163
No, but I don't see how this case is analogous. If you want an actual analogy, an allied soldier who killed 3 unarmed, innocent civilians is a serial killer, and if he justifies himself for doing so, I would also talk about mental illness.

[Anonymous No.16333203]

>>16333141
>In this case they did good. Kinda like asking help from a mobster in order to stop an active pedophile. Doing so does not entail that you support organized crime.
Depends if you pay them, then you would support them.
But in the case of going to the state because you have a problem in the family means to strengthen their system. Especially considering Ted was fighting against it, so it's a double ratting.

[Anonymous No.16333204]

>>16333193
so serial killers are defined by who they kill?

[Anonymous No.16333206]

>>16333155
You're not going to answer my question then?

[Anonymous No.16333231]

>>16330582
>then he got MK ULTRA'd on top of that

This is actual CIA propaganda. All the Netflix shows about Ted have pushed this line, and it's entirely nonsense. Ted himself refutes it in a letter, and it's obviously a ploy to make people think he's "cah-raaaazy" and wasn't acting of his own volition, thereby keeping them away from his literature. The endeavor to make him appear insane began the moment he was arrested. He talks about this in his work. Read it sometime.

[Anonymous No.16333244]

>>16333206
ok, i'll be more direct:

Kaczynski is certainly a terrorist, but it would be misleading and incorrect to label him a "serial killer" since the term "serial killer" implies a pathological motivation which rules out all rational or political motivations. Ted Bundy enjoyed kis killing, and killed for personal satisfaction alone, Kaczynski had concrete political motivations. Of course Kaczynski may have enjoyed his killings (in the same way a soldier may enjoy killing the enemy) but this was not his sole or primary motive.

P.S. I shouldn't have to spell my point out, it should have been clear by my questions.

[Anonymous No.16333257]

>>16333203
>Depends if you pay them, then you would support them.
David did not pay them, so in my analogy, you just tell mobsters that there is an active pedophile in the block, and they go hunt him down without expecting compensation.
>But in the case of going to the state because you have a problem in the family means to strengthen their system. Especially considering Ted was fighting against it, so it's a double ratting.
I'd rather leave the notion of "ratting" to drug dealers and thugs: "ratting" is not necessarily a bad thing. I would also claim that anyone is entitled to recide a familial bond if a relative of theirs does something particularly heinius, like becoming a serial killer, a pedophile, a rapist, stuff like that. At that point the only thing that matters is stopping the guy.
>>16333204
Obviously. If you kill 3 children you are a serial killer, if you kill 3 people who broke into your home in order to kill you and rape you, then that's self defence. The identity of the killed person and the context in which they got killed are absolutely relevant when it comes to the evaluation of these actions. Even if I fully accepted Ted's position, two out of his three murders are complete.y unjustified (I might concede to you the murder of Murray as justifiable).

[Anonymous No.16333280]

>>16333244
>since the term "serial killer" implies a pathological motivation which rules out all rational or political motivations
Umh... no? In fact I'm failing to find any definition of "serial killer" online which follows your interpretation.
I was right in asking you to make your position explicit, given how niche it is.

[Anonymous No.16333310]

>>16333257
"unjustified" according to who? this is a ridiculous standard you set up which is only relevant to the propaganda and education you've received. If I killed a nazi clerk because I thought it served an important goal toward liberating germany, the nazi's would probably call it "unjustified" because it wasn't a foot soldier, while the allies might see it as justified.

[Anonymous No.16333315]

>>16330763
"communism is when no iphone"

[Anonymous No.16333335]

>>16333280
It certainly does imply pathological motivation. Show me just one person termed "serial killer" who is not suggested to have a pathological motivation in part.

It's important to realize that the commonly understood meaning of phrases changes over time, partly in response to how the media selectively uses the term. So my statement that the term "serial killer" carries the "implication" of pathological motivation would still apply whether you see it in a dictionary or not. Just go by the trends in modern usage.

[Anonymous No.16333360]

You're not going to win with this anon, he's completely brainwashed. I think the deaths of those people were terrible, as I'm opposed to murder/violence in almost all cases, albeit historically it is necessary, but I would never betray my own brother to the state. The state is much more heinous and killed far more innocent people than Ted ever could.

>>16333310 BTFO this conformist, but he'll weasel his way out of this. And oh, he bought into the MKUltra narrative, of course. "Ted's just crazy none of this beliefs are 'rational'".

[Anonymous No.16333366]

>>16333310
Is this how you justify the murder of a guy who committed the crime of owning a computer store? By this logic I can justify every murder on Earth, as long as the murderer has justified said murder to himself.

[Anonymous No.16333368]

>>16333280
this is precisely why there has been so much controversy over the term. According to Enc. Britannica:

"There has been considerable debate among criminologists about the proper definition of serial murder."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/serial-murder

But I stand by my assertion that in it's common usage, especially by the media, it applies toward killers of multiple people who have a pathological motivation. This distinguishes them from terrorists. This is why you rarely hear the term used on, for example, Islamic terrorists.

[Anonymous No.16333379]

>>16333366
You can't nor need to justify anything.
He killed 3 people.
That's all there is to it.
He's still my brother.
The state is still evil and has killed far more 'innocent' people.
Plus David profited off of it.

[Anonymous No.16333391]

>>16333366
the support of technology is one of the absolute worst and most criminal things you can do. the people who support and encourage technological growth are some of the worst criminals in history. back in the 1990s, starting a computer store was a much bigger commitment to technology and the technological society than it is today, though it is still criminal.

[Anonymous No.16333404]

>>16333391
Jesus Christ dude, get a grip.
You could like Ted, but killing that guy was a shitty thing to do.
Your moral ethics of technology are hardly universal.

[Anonymous No.16333415]

>>16333404
I think you're completely wrong, and your ethics are completely wrong and evil.

[Anonymous No.16333425]

>>16333335
Christopher Dorner, who killed multiple children, and who had sketched his political philosophy in his manifesto. Still worthy of being called a serial killer.
>>16333368
Imho it refers to someone who commits multiple murders in a similar fashion. Pretending that this expression can only refer to Bundy-types is to sanitize serial killers, by implying that only absolute wackos can become one.
>>16333379
>You can't nor need to justify anything.
I gues Jeffrey Damher was a gentleman and a scholar then.
>That's all there is to it.
That's a whole lot, if you ask me
>He's still my brother.
If you want to consider him so, do so. I have just argued that you would be entitled in rejecting the familial tie you have with him, if you wanted to. David decided to do do.
>The state is still evil and has killed far more 'innocent' people.
I have already answered to this objection.
>Plus David profited off of it.
It is irrelevant unless you think David would have covered for him had there not been any bounty on Ted's head. I have no reason to assume that this is the case, and even if it were, I would still think he did the right thing for the wrong reason

[Anonymous No.16333428]

>>16333415
What are my ethics?
My ethics are you shouldn't just kill people because you feel a certain way. State-mandated or not, although sometimes in positions of authority it's necessary to command people to do so on your behalf. You're on a computer right now typing this, so I'm guessing you haven't thought ur ideas through completely.

[Anonymous No.16333436]

>>16333415
Okay, Mr. if you sell a pc you deserve to die, making your wife a widow and your children orphans

[Anonymous No.16333440]

>>16330170
Yes

[Anonymous No.16333457]

>>16333117
He partially fits the definition based on multiple separate killings over time, but if you take his motivation into account, domestic terrorist fits him best.

He was a terrorist making a political statement. I don't think there's much to say that he got personal gratification from killing people, and people labeled as serial killers normally do.

This is all semantics based on definitions with some soft edges and gray areas though. I can see how someone could argue that he's a serial killer.

[Anonymous No.16333460]

>>16333425
>I gues Jeffrey Damher was a gentleman and a scholar then.
No, but he killed. He was a force of nature, there was no morality there. You're assuming your impulses on morality are neutral when killers exist, that is there purpose. Yours is to oppose them I suppose.

>That's a whole lot, if you ask me
If you ask me as well.

>If you want to consider him so, do so. I have just argued that you would be entitled in rejecting the familial tie you have with him, if you wanted to. David decided to do do.
IDK what I'd do in that situation, it is not an easy decision. David speculated it would be him and went out of his way to figure it out. I'd probably turn a blind eye and live with the guilt desu.

>I have already answered to this objection.
And? What was it? This is the most serious objection. There's other alternatives. You could kill your brother yourself, why is handing your brother over to the state which he opposes a good thing. It was not sadistic, or enjoyable, he was a sort of failed revolutionary.

>It is irrelevant unless you think David would have covered for him had there not been any bounty on Ted's head. I have no reason to assume that this is the case, and even if it were, I would still think he did the right thing for the wrong reason

[Anonymous No.16333473]

>>16333428
cool man. so I shouldn't kill a slave-owner because I feel slavery is a horrible evil and killing the slave-owner might be the only way to free the slave. got it.

your ethics a mostly the result of brainwashing by education and propaganda to condition you to think and act in exactly the way the industrial system needs you to think and act. No matter what sort of philosophical rationalization you might try to think up, your ethics is purely a result of this conditioning.

[Anonymous No.16333480]

>>16333473
>"are"

got to go to bed. goodnight.

[Anonymous No.16333483]

>>16333473
>cool man. so I shouldn't kill a slave-owner because I feel slavery is a horrible evil and killing the slave-owner might be the only way to free the slave. got it.
yes, you shouldn't and you didn't. People like you are born to be slaves.

>your ethics a mostly the result of brainwashing by education and propaganda to condition you to think and act in exactly the way the industrial system needs you to think and act. No matter what sort of philosophical rationalization you might try to think up, your ethics is purely a result of this conditioning.
'Muh muh pseudo-psychology' You're a moron and a coward. KYS, faggot.

[Anonymous No.16333493]

>>16333483
you first moron. and I'll happily kill a slave-owner if I see one.

[Anonymous No.16333496]

>>16330722
You're conflating social democracies with leftism. It's not the same. The "leftist" countries you're referring to use the Nordic model which is still capitalist it does not matter how many safety nets or universal whatever you have as long as the MOP isn't in the hands of the workers it isn't leftist. I'm surprised no one caught your dumb ass
on that yet. Probably you're the type that argues China is actually socialist too lol dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.16333502]

>>16333493
Why?
Slavery is not inherently bad and most were treated better than non-slaves, and most people should be/are slaves.
You kill computer store owners and slave owners, because you view yourself as a sort of hero. The slaves could get their own freedom and the people there's by not using technology. Go fuck yourself faggot.

[Anonymous No.16333514]

>>16333502
kek. you first moron.

[Anonymous No.16333515]

"Woah guys let's just kill slave owners because the same people that tell us technology good also tell us slavery bad."
You have no vision, slavery always exists in some manner you cowardly naive American child.
Actually thinking killing a computer store owner will make any difference you fucking rodent.

[Anonymous No.16333522]

>>16330170
>Ted's hair parted to the right
>David's parted to the left
Ted the hero confirmed.

[Anonymous No.16333525]

>>16333514
No you're just a volatile stooge with no vision except immediate gratification, just an ideology of killing people for one small disagreement, no Utopianism, no vision, nothing.
Killing a computer store owner doesn't end technology slavery, killing a slave owner of the past doesn't end physical slavery. There is abstract thought you are just not grasping, you shallow petty Marxist.

[Anonymous No.16333527]

>>16333515
it's not just the current state of affairs, it's also about where all this mad technological growth is taking us. It iwll inevitably end in total disaster, both for the biosphere and fro human freedom and dignity. the people who are promoting tech growth are some of the worst criminals who ever lived--worse than hitler or stalin or mao. So no, it's about preventing a catastrophe, but it's also about ultimate justice for some of these criminals.

[Anonymous No.16333531]

>>16333525
there is a vision, but you would have to take the time to actually listen and/or read.

[Anonymous No.16333537]

>>16333527
I don't even disagree, but the people buy into it, there's an equilibrium between the buyer and seller, of course there's marketer manipulation etc., and most of the technological people are woefully naive, incapable of conceiving this is bad. You ultimately want to thrust your opinions on the masses, and the world simply does not work that me. Oppose it which way you can, but the end is inevitable. What did Ted killing that guy accomplish? Netflix series painting him as crazy, and life in jail.

[Anonymous No.16333549]

>>16333531
I read Ted, I agree with him for the most part.
I don't disagree with your stance on anti-tech.
I disagree with his decision to kill random people.
I do disagree about the 'evil' thing, they are to be opposed, but I don't think they're divinely evil desu.

[Anonymous No.16333566]

>>16333537
>>16333549
ok, thank you for your thoughts. you have questions that i can't answer because i have to sleep, as i said here >>16333480

[Anonymous No.16333569]

>>16333502
Imagine comparing owning a computer store to owning slaves lol the absolute state of lot. There is documented evidence of slave owners raping, using the women as brood mothers, and disciplining them with excessive force. This was not an exception it was the norm you lying Dixie fuck. Entire genepools disappeared in the early America's. African American women contribute to their gene pool at a 17:1 rate or some shit. Go on, tell me that isn't because of rape and abuse. Guess we will have to go way down south to the land of traitors to kick more slave owning ass.

[Anonymous No.16333587]

>>16333569
This is baseless propaganda.
'We have documented evidence'
There's documented evidence on everything, spare me your morality, you're not uniquely oppressed, and our contemporary morality did not exist back then. People like you have no vision, no will, you cannot see beyond this immediate scope of oppression. Spare me, child.

[Anonymous No.16333598]

>>16333569
you've completely missed the point. the point was about relative morality of different social systems, not that slave owning and computer-store owning are comparable.

computer store owning is worse though. because of the implications of technological growth for all of humanity and the planet. slave-owning at least didn't call those into question.

[Anonymous No.16333599]

>>16333569
Answer me why any of this is bad?
Infant mortality rate and life expectancy were almost extremely low throughout human history.
Please tell me why suddenly the past must be just, why must it be undone. This prosperity has been on the backs of tremendous suffering. Technology is a new kind of oppression, you cannot read the world of oppression no matter its manifestation.

[Anonymous No.16333602]

>>16333460
>No, but he killed. He was a force of nature, there was no morality there. You're assuming your impulses on morality are neutral when killers exist, that is there purpose. Yours is to oppose them I suppose.
I don't get what you mean
>And? What was it? This is the most serious objection. There's other alternatives. You could kill your brother yourself, why is handing your brother over to the state which he opposes a good thing. It was not sadistic, or enjoyable, he was a sort of failed revolutionary.
Here >>16333141 and here>>16333257

>>16333473
Owning a computer store is not on the same level as being a slave owner.

[Anonymous No.16333615]

>>16333587
>our contemporary morality did not exist back then
People in the 17th to 19th century had the basic moral notions required to see slavery as wrong.
>>16333598
>computer store owning is worse than slavery
The absolute state of this site lmao

[Anonymous No.16333618]

>>16333602
you're right, owning a computer store is worse.

[Anonymous No.16333628]

>>16333587
It's not about inserting our morality into that time. I'm simply telling you what it was actually like back then. I am familiar with how people thought back then and yes obviously they had different conceptions of what constituted property rights. This is besides the point, there were people at the time who were opposed to slavery as well though this was extremely radical thought at the time. It's not about having a vision it's about giving an honest account about what happened back then and realizing that it is not okay to have that level of wide spread systemic mistreatment of people. You thickheaded dipshit "muh vision" bro the only thing you can envision is your mom coming downstairs with your tendies in the next 5 minutes.

[Anonymous No.16333634]

>>16330205
>be kaczynski
>be against things being blown up
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.16333642]

>>16333628
>systemic mistreatment of people
You're using that term quite loosely, I believe.
Not him btw.

[Anonymous No.16333647]

>>16333628
I mean that's a very shallow look at it, nobody denies it's 'bad.' Yes, you have no vision, and you have to resort to frivolous ad hominens. IDC about rectifying the past, faggot. There's greater problems than filling a few diversity quotas because blacks sold other blacks to America. How would you know how it was anyway? You're hardly an expert on anything.

>>16333615
>People in the 17th to 19th century had the basic moral notions required to see slavery as wrong.
No slavery still exists, and at a greater rate from technology. You're very immediate and shallow.

[Anonymous No.16333649]

>>16330170
Hm or maybe he had a moral compass and was disturbed by his brother's terroristic bombing spree of random scientists, universities, and air planes to force his ideas into popular awareness and suspected these violent tendencies might be a sign of paranoid schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.16333655]

goodnight

[Anonymous No.16333658]

>>16333649
Untermensch David vs Übermensch Ted.

[Anonymous No.16333659]

>>16330292
he got caught

[Anonymous No.16333661]

His brother had no way of knowing what the govt would do to Ted. He might have thought they would commit him to psyche ward or something. He also had no way of being sure that Ted would stop mailing bombs. He could be reasonably certain that Ted would be protected by due process and constitutional rights, he had no way of knowing whether Ted would kill anymore random people because “I feel like you didn’t listen well enough the first time” or because “I came up with a newer, even better, philosophy and I’ve decided that this one also deserves the type of front page notoriety typically reserved for acts of terrorism.”
It’s too bad Ted didn’t read the dozens upon dozens of refutations of his dipshit psycho worldview that existed long before he was even born or else maybe get himself an internet connection so he could start a blog like every one else. I don’t think he deserves what’s being done to him, but you really can’t ignore the fact that someone you know has committed acts of terrorism.

[Anonymous No.16333671]

>>16333661
So you have more loyalty to the state than your own family?

[Anonymous No.16333673]

One of the only BASED living Americans and the faggots locked him up! Absolute state.

[Anonymous No.16333676]

>ad hominem is an argument if they're like really, super bad

[Anonymous No.16333685]

>>16333676
?

[Anonymous No.16333687]

>>16333661
There literally isn't any refutation to his worldview. Tech and AI will eventually dominate the world and mankind will go extinct. The only "refutation" is anti-natalism and shit like that.

[Anonymous No.16333709]

>>16333658
>Übermensch Ted has rotted in a jail cell for most of his life. Was killing people really essential to getting his ideas into circulation? I doubt it. It just so happens that associating extreme acts with something tends to create a charge around the targeted material.

[Anonymous No.16333712]

>>16333687
If you have such a dim view of mankind that you think a superior being will inevitably seek to annihilate us what's the good cause in fighting it?

[Anonymous No.16333721]

>>16333712
There's no good cause in anything, the fight against the inevitable is ultimately the history of humanity. It gives our life meaning.

[Anonymous No.16333734]

>>16333721
I prefer us to be resigned to going out with some dignity, not shrieking and hurling feces in every direction as Kaczynskites propose.

[Anonymous No.16333738]

>>16333712
If a killer came to your house and wanted to kill you and your family, would you just surrender and perish or would you fight?

[Anonymous No.16333750]

>>16333734
Meaningless abstraction

[Anonymous No.16333752]

>>16333734
I shit on your dignity. Machines won't give a shit so you might as well fight and die than do nothing and die. Better to die like a man, the last of your kind, than like a useless worm.

[Anonymous No.16333756]

>>16333671
Dude, it’s not like he lied to the IRS or smuggled weed across a state border. He killed people. You have to draw the line somewhere. It’s not as if I have a sack of loyalty lying around that I have to ration out to different concepts.

[Anonymous No.16333759]

>>16333738
>I prefer us to be resigned to going out with some dignity, not shrieking and hurling feces in every direction as Kaczynskites propose.

[Anonymous No.16333769]

>>16333756
The State kills people every day

[Anonymous No.16333783]

>>16333759
Turbocuck. No wonder you're against Ted. Humanity has been doing every conceivable degenerate action, but it's at this precise moment that they seek for some dignity. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.16333792]

>>16333783
>>I prefer us to be resigned to going out with some dignity, not shrieking and hurling feces in every direction as Kaczynskites propose.

[Anonymous No.16333798]

>>16333752
What if you can't win, after all they're going to be so much smarter than us. Putting us out of our misery gently say through sterilization and a dopamine drip may just be the humane thing to do according to the true objective morality they figure out, which shouldn't be objectionable if you believe in anything higher than your monkey survival instinct.

[Anonymous No.16333802]

>>16333798
No I'm just a faggot. Here's my bank account, go fuck that nigger down the street while you deposit all my money, and I jerk off to licking your asshole.

[Anonymous No.16333805]

>>16333792
>>Turbocuck. No wonder you're against Ted. Humanity has been doing every conceivable degenerate action, but it's at this precise moment that they seek for some dignity. Hilarious.

[Anonymous No.16333806]

>>16333805
No I'm just a faggot. Here's my bank account, go fuck that nigger down the street while you deposit all my money, and I jerk off to licking your asshole.

[Anonymous No.16333811]

>>16333687
Oh shit! We're all going to go extinct? Tell me something I don’t know. If it isn’t AI it’ll be the sun exploding or the eventual exhaustion of all energy in the universe. Mankind has gone extinct hundreds of times, generations go extinct every year. In thirty years WW2 will evaporate from living memory and forty years later you’ll go along as well. Yes, blah blah blah, I’d fight a serial killer if he broke into my home. But I guess, according to your logic it would fine to surrender, provided said serial killer came bearing a manifesto which he felt lacked sufficient publicity.

[Anonymous No.16333813]

>>16333802
Oh I seem to have broke this anon.

[Anonymous No.16333815]

>>16333813
It's a glowie.

[Anonymous No.16333825]

>>16330170
His brother ratted him out. Based on Ted's memoirs (which I would not take as purely factual) he makes his brother out to be WHIPPED.

[Anonymous No.16333838]

>>16333815
>>16333813
No I'm just a faggot. Here's my bank account, go fuck that nigger down the street while you deposit all my money, and I jerk off to licking your asshole.

[Anonymous No.16333842]

>>16333769
If The State does it than anyone can do it, free of consequence, right? Does this include incarceration, taxation, and the regulation of utilities? Can I inflict building codes upon my neighbor?

[Anonymous No.16333846]

>>16333798
>>16333811
>unironically shilling for the machines
kek absolute state of humanity. Ted was right.

[Anonymous No.16333871]

>>16330639
>I'm merely making fun of Americans who become intoxicated by Paris and make stupid decisions.
Grade A comedy.
Rent free.

[Anonymous No.16333881]

>>16333842
No the state is too powerful.
He didn't think it through, but a good try.

[Anonymous No.16333890]

>>16333846
You’re the one preaching fear of the impending doom wrought by our new machine overlords, not me.

[Anonymous No.16333900]

>>16333890
What do you think is the ultimate consequence of technological advances?

[Anonymous No.16333925]

The problem isn't the technology, its the power hungry degenerate filth that control the world and want everyone to be their cattle that is the problem.
Unfortunately the only one who can fix this shit at this point is God.

[Anonymous No.16333941]

>>16330860
Bold of you to assume they are different places

[Anonymous No.16333958]

>>16333119
>familial bonds arent above everything else
kike

[Anonymous No.16334375]

>>16330170
His wife persuaded him to report ted. So he snitched on his brother with whom he had spent his childhood for the sake of some bitch.

[Anonymous No.16334390]

>>16333231
I suppose the part about autism and transgenderism and the generally ruinous result of the study he participated in was also propaganda and had no effect on his decision to bomb an airliner, kill university faculty and computer store owners etc.

[Anonymous No.16334415]

>>16330170
>ywn be as handsome and as intelligent as a young Ted Kaczynski

[Anonymous No.16334627]

>>16330672
>pedo, or killer of the weak
snitch on him
>robbing bank, murder of thug, noble crimes
let him go

[Anonymous No.16334835]

>>16333391
Lol you obviously aren’t a wood dweller retard so can I kill you