Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's a nice euphemism there
The Unabomber is dead
- Thread starter equationgirl
- Start date
He knew his brother was doing something illegal.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Right ok. I know nothing about that. Is it relevant here?
Bus Honeygun
This week the score draws are plentiful
I’ve just texted my daughter to tell her this. She’s obsessed with him for some strange reason.
Yeah, it goes without saying that everything he did was abhorrent, but there is something ghoulishly fascinating about him.
It’s relevant as it’s the same dilemma you posted about - shopping ones brother - and it’s a more or less current news story.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's hardly obscure either, it's been widely reported in the media
Yossarian
⏭️
In 1979 he tried to blow up an American Airlines plane with 78 people on board - good riddance to him, it's a shame he didn't blow his hands off in his first bomb-making attempt.
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
Wishing injury on someone who is bread is a bit ..
If you can’t beat murderers, join ‘em.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
He had some very clear ideas on technology and written about them in letters to his brother. I think the FBI looked at the words he used, his syntax and grammar as well as the overall writings. Not just style of writing, more the totality of everything.
ETA: this might be the case that lead to the development of forensic handwriting analysis as a branch of forensic science.
Last edited:
I actually can’t remember which serial killer he is. I’m pretty sure I watched a documentary about him but she makes me watch so many of these things that they all blend in to one. Did he live in the woods? I think he’s the one that wore bigger shoes so the FBI couldn’t trace him from his shoe size though.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Yes, he was the one in lived in the woods off grid for 20 years.
I get what you mean about them all blending into one after a while.
Yossarian
⏭️
It would have been good if his terrorist career had been nipped in the bud, possibly in an ironic manner.
If he was determined to use explosives to make his point against technology there must have been countless infrastructure targets he could have attacked - instead, he set out to blow people's fingers and faces off, the sadistic fuck
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Philip Scofield's brother?
Bizarre targets also. Surely technology in the wrong hands can be an issue more than folk who are simply teaching it or are consumers of it.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
You just need your argument to prevail eventually and then the public will retrospectively gloss over whatever methods you chose.
Suffragette bombing and arson campaign - Wikipedia
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
A lot of the shit he wrote is barely a rizla's breadth away from stuff that gets printed in the mainstream press all the time these days. Stuff about how it's the lefties and the gays and 'political correctness' that's ruining everything.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
From what I can remember that stuff was a tiny part of what he said and thought, but he definitely had a part that was misanthropic and more critical of what he saw as the completely 'human centred' political stuff and also early identity politics rather than actually 'blaming gays' as such.
In the US there was (is?) a much more dominant current that's deep green / biocentric / wilderness focused than there is here in the UK and Europe, so some of it is much more jarring to us than it might be to some people there, at least that was the case a bit ago.
In the US there was (is?) a much more dominant current that's deep green / biocentric / wilderness focused than there is here in the UK and Europe, so some of it is much more jarring to us than it might be to some people there, at least that was the case a bit ago.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Fuck off!You just need your argument to prevail eventually and then the public will retrospectively gloss over whatever methods you chose.
Suffragette bombing and arson campaign - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
He was a murderous, racist, misogynistic, neoMalthusian shit, and you think it is acceptable to compare his crimes with women's struggle for equality.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I'm confused. Are you saying that if someone accepts his claims they will accept his actions?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
No, I'm saying if a societal consensus develops for his claims, then a similar consensus will arise to forgive the methods used, as in the suffragettes or uMkhonto we Sizwe. Condemning his methods or supporting his claims in isolation doesn't really work. He's not bad because he bombed people, he's bad because the reason he bombed people was wrong.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
That doesn’t follow.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, it’s definitely the methods I have most problem with.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
But if the reason was ok (votes for women, anti-apartheid etc) the methods would be fine. So it's entirely the justification for the methods that is the problem.
Someone shoots and kills someone with a gun. Whether you have a problem with that depends entirely on the reason for the shooting.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, you are mistaken. If you send letter bombs that the secretary or intern or graduate student is going to open, or which might go off in transit in the postal system, you can have the motives of the angels but you are in the wrong.
An extreme example: I do not approve of the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, despite my opposing the fascist Axis alliance.
