Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.54 AVERAGE
3.54 AVERAGE
read for class - fucking crazy. why was he cookin lowkey.
that being said i need my fridge
that being said i need my fridge
2.5 más que 3
Estilísticamente no tiene nada de especial, de hecho, no se si ya por la naturaleza misma del escrito o por la traducción a veces puede llegar a ser un poco hasta burda de vocabulario.
Pero aun así, su tesis es interesante, cabe destacar que no es originaria de él y Jaques Ellul podríamos decir que es un poco la vertiente más académica.
Aun así peca de tirar de tópicos que no paran de hacerle la zancadilla a un tratado cuyo propósito es llegar al máximo de personas, conceptos manidos y que son demasiado circunstanciales de la situación americana más que del resto.
Estilísticamente no tiene nada de especial, de hecho, no se si ya por la naturaleza misma del escrito o por la traducción a veces puede llegar a ser un poco hasta burda de vocabulario.
Pero aun así, su tesis es interesante, cabe destacar que no es originaria de él y Jaques Ellul podríamos decir que es un poco la vertiente más académica.
Aun así peca de tirar de tópicos que no paran de hacerle la zancadilla a un tratado cuyo propósito es llegar al máximo de personas, conceptos manidos y que son demasiado circunstanciales de la situación americana más que del resto.
I guess the cliche "actions speak louder than words" is true in this case as violence is Kaczynski's legacy. But if you can put his chosen tactics aside, there are a lot of ideas worth reading and considering in this essay. Many have only gained in relevance since publication. We all make a Faustian bargain in our lives. Kaczynski makes a compelling case for more carefully considering that bargain's trade-offs and ramifications.
Hey, I don't know if you guys have noticed, but this Unabomber guy is kind of nuts.
...
More seriously, despite having read some commentaries that discuss the lucidity and strength of Kaczynski's arguments, I didn't find his manifesto particularly convincing. He routinely presents his personal preferences as though they are rationally defensible: at one point, for example, he declares that while people might feel that their hobbies fulfill them, they are not truly as fulfilled as they would be if their energies were spent on the struggle for survival. Maybe that's true, but unless you can prove it, you don't get to claim it as a fact. He frequently indulges in the use of anecdata (e.g., 'rich people can have anything they need without working for it, and yet some rich people are miserable, therefore being able to have everything you need without working for it can't make you happy.') He acknowledges that pre-technological societies have shorter lifespans, but hand waves this away by declaring that they're really much happier despite dying at age 30. At one point he claims that pre-technological man was so much more at peace with himself that he could sit idly without any entertainment for hours, and while I'm not an anthropologist, I don't think that hunter-gatherers were generally known for having large amounts of idle time between killing buffalo and not dying of dysentery.
I also found it hilarious the extent to which he rails against leftists. In pursuit of the overthrow of technological society, Kaczynski argues that revolutionaries should be willing to make common cause with anyone else--but NOT liberals, because their inherent treachery and authoritarian impulses mean they will inevitably betray the cause. It takes up at least a few pages and I couldn't help but wonder if Noam Chomsky killed Ted's dog or something like that.
And while it's easy enough for me to have a laugh about the whole thing while Kaczynski rots in a supermax cell, it's revolting that the pursuit of such a harebrained ideology was used to justify his murderous actions. He explains in the text that he just HAD to bomb folks, because otherwise no one would have paid attention to his philosophy. All I can say is that I wish Kaczynski had mailed his manifesto to the New York Times and then blew himself up in his cabin as an act of protest--his arguments would have been just as ineffectual, and the rest of us would have been rid of him without further bloodshed.
...
More seriously, despite having read some commentaries that discuss the lucidity and strength of Kaczynski's arguments, I didn't find his manifesto particularly convincing. He routinely presents his personal preferences as though they are rationally defensible: at one point, for example, he declares that while people might feel that their hobbies fulfill them, they are not truly as fulfilled as they would be if their energies were spent on the struggle for survival. Maybe that's true, but unless you can prove it, you don't get to claim it as a fact. He frequently indulges in the use of anecdata (e.g., 'rich people can have anything they need without working for it, and yet some rich people are miserable, therefore being able to have everything you need without working for it can't make you happy.') He acknowledges that pre-technological societies have shorter lifespans, but hand waves this away by declaring that they're really much happier despite dying at age 30. At one point he claims that pre-technological man was so much more at peace with himself that he could sit idly without any entertainment for hours, and while I'm not an anthropologist, I don't think that hunter-gatherers were generally known for having large amounts of idle time between killing buffalo and not dying of dysentery.
I also found it hilarious the extent to which he rails against leftists. In pursuit of the overthrow of technological society, Kaczynski argues that revolutionaries should be willing to make common cause with anyone else--but NOT liberals, because their inherent treachery and authoritarian impulses mean they will inevitably betray the cause. It takes up at least a few pages and I couldn't help but wonder if Noam Chomsky killed Ted's dog or something like that.
And while it's easy enough for me to have a laugh about the whole thing while Kaczynski rots in a supermax cell, it's revolting that the pursuit of such a harebrained ideology was used to justify his murderous actions. He explains in the text that he just HAD to bomb folks, because otherwise no one would have paid attention to his philosophy. All I can say is that I wish Kaczynski had mailed his manifesto to the New York Times and then blew himself up in his cabin as an act of protest--his arguments would have been just as ineffectual, and the rest of us would have been rid of him without further bloodshed.
i went into this thinking that perhaps he had a few good points, there's no way thousands of people on the internet praise a terrorist for no reason! right?
i think completely separate from the context of kaczynski's life and his crimes, this manifesto still fails completely. he spends half the book complaining about leftists, yet forgets to actually fully plan out the revolution he wants to enact. he had no idea what would happen if we were to completely destroy the current social structure and destroy technology, and even acknowledged that his actions would likely make society even more restrictive, completely contradicting his whole argument about why freedom is so important. what makes it worse is the fact that his entire 'motive' for the death and injury he caused was an afterthought. he mentions in his journals before his first attack that his reasons for killing people was "simply [for] personal revenge". revenge for what i might ask, but this fact illustrates how little he actually cared about freedom for everyone, as he was completely willing to take that away from people for his own "personal revenge" against the system. how does murdering a computer store owner he had never met achieve this??? how does almost shooting your neighbours 3 year old daughter because she annoyed you help to fight against the system??? good questions!
that is to say that his manifesto was not 'new' or 'before its time' (star wars: a new hope had the exact same anti-technology mindset in 1977 without murdering anyone to spread the message.) it is not 'revolutionary' or 'life-changing' and definitely does not in any way absolve him of his crimes. it is the excuses of murderer trying to justify his actions through the guise of 'bettering society in the long run' as a means to rally more people against each other and create destruction. ted kaczynski was clearly a very lonely, mentally unwell man, who took that out on other, innocent people because he hated everyone. he was able to live his 'primitive lifestyle' due to the financial support of his father, and expected everyone to do the same. this manifesto makes incredibly generalised, sweeping claims about society's structure (but mainly the people in it, who have no other choice?) and even admits that his claims may be "flatly false," which completely diminishes any actual arguments made. people who praise this manifesto and ted kaczynski as a person clearly have not read the manifesto, read about the case, or are just plain dumb because the amount of hypocrisy and contradictions within the manifesto alone are shocking. kaczynski had the resources and opportunity to live his dream away from society in nature on his own and being fully self-sufficient, yet gave that all up to wreak terror and harm among the population and spent a majority of his life locked up in a prison with people he despised and no access to nature. nature that i dont believe he cared for as much as he claimed, moreso the only alternative to human society, as he claims that nature and survival is all that is needed to be fulfilled in life and people who engage in 'surrogate activities' like art or literature do so because life in modern society is not fulfilling enough on its own. yet didnt ted write this book, a piece of literature if you will, while living in his cabin in the woods?? didnt he build bombs and write books and journal entries and paint?? seems like nature wasnt all that fulfilling!
also cmon this guy wants to get rid of any kind of medicine as it doesnt allow for 'natural selection'.......... speaks for itself i think.
i think completely separate from the context of kaczynski's life and his crimes, this manifesto still fails completely. he spends half the book complaining about leftists, yet forgets to actually fully plan out the revolution he wants to enact. he had no idea what would happen if we were to completely destroy the current social structure and destroy technology, and even acknowledged that his actions would likely make society even more restrictive, completely contradicting his whole argument about why freedom is so important. what makes it worse is the fact that his entire 'motive' for the death and injury he caused was an afterthought. he mentions in his journals before his first attack that his reasons for killing people was "simply [for] personal revenge". revenge for what i might ask, but this fact illustrates how little he actually cared about freedom for everyone, as he was completely willing to take that away from people for his own "personal revenge" against the system. how does murdering a computer store owner he had never met achieve this??? how does almost shooting your neighbours 3 year old daughter because she annoyed you help to fight against the system??? good questions!
that is to say that his manifesto was not 'new' or 'before its time' (star wars: a new hope had the exact same anti-technology mindset in 1977 without murdering anyone to spread the message.) it is not 'revolutionary' or 'life-changing' and definitely does not in any way absolve him of his crimes. it is the excuses of murderer trying to justify his actions through the guise of 'bettering society in the long run' as a means to rally more people against each other and create destruction. ted kaczynski was clearly a very lonely, mentally unwell man, who took that out on other, innocent people because he hated everyone. he was able to live his 'primitive lifestyle' due to the financial support of his father, and expected everyone to do the same. this manifesto makes incredibly generalised, sweeping claims about society's structure (but mainly the people in it, who have no other choice?) and even admits that his claims may be "flatly false," which completely diminishes any actual arguments made. people who praise this manifesto and ted kaczynski as a person clearly have not read the manifesto, read about the case, or are just plain dumb because the amount of hypocrisy and contradictions within the manifesto alone are shocking. kaczynski had the resources and opportunity to live his dream away from society in nature on his own and being fully self-sufficient, yet gave that all up to wreak terror and harm among the population and spent a majority of his life locked up in a prison with people he despised and no access to nature. nature that i dont believe he cared for as much as he claimed, moreso the only alternative to human society, as he claims that nature and survival is all that is needed to be fulfilled in life and people who engage in 'surrogate activities' like art or literature do so because life in modern society is not fulfilling enough on its own. yet didnt ted write this book, a piece of literature if you will, while living in his cabin in the woods?? didnt he build bombs and write books and journal entries and paint?? seems like nature wasnt all that fulfilling!
also cmon this guy wants to get rid of any kind of medicine as it doesnt allow for 'natural selection'.......... speaks for itself i think.
Read this for a CS ethics course, to understand the potential consequences of technology.
While the Unabomber was definitely crazy, his book is pretty rational, nothing earth-shattering or mind-blowing here, mostly common sense.
We have no way to predict what our future will look like guided by technology, and this book should be read by people in charge of that future.
While the Unabomber was definitely crazy, his book is pretty rational, nothing earth-shattering or mind-blowing here, mostly common sense.
We have no way to predict what our future will look like guided by technology, and this book should be read by people in charge of that future.
This is one of the most interesting reads I’ve come across. I revisited it as a recommendation from an old teacher (they taught forensics and criminology and I did have to read it in high school for their class but didn’t really understand it then) when I was complaining that nothing I was reading was holding my interest during the adhd med shortage…this held my interest. The idea that the USA should ban this book is actual insanity when I personally feel this is something anyone with an interest in true crime should read.
Reductive, overly focused on "leftism" over any other movements, but I feel the arguments are rooted in genuine and reasonable fears. I cannot ever imagine a revolution against all technology ever being a possibility though, we're too invested.
imagine these clowns giving cia agent osama glowing reviews. For someone who abhorred technology he sure did murder innocent people using it. Take your qualms with conglomerates to conglomerates.