The Unabomber is dead

[platinumsage]

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.

Do you disapprove of the suffragettes' bombing campaign? Do you think society does in the same way it disapproves of the Unabomber's? Are the Unabomber's bombing crimes comparable to those of the suffragettes and uMkhonto we Sizwe?

 

[danny la rouge]

Do you disapprove of the suffragettes' bombing campaign?

Yes.

I’m an anarchist, and I very much do not approve of those anarchists in the 19th century who carried out “propaganda by deed” attacks either. For clarity.

 

[Spymaster]

R.I.P.

 

[equationgirl]

Yes, posting letter bombs. Although perhaps stronger language is appropriate.

I’ve never read his manifesto. I don’t want to either.

Same.

 

[equationgirl]

I think desperate people sometimes do desparate things to make themselves heard.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think desperate people sometimes do desparate things to make themselves heard.

Indeed.

What I’m taking issue with platinumsage over is whether it’s possible to both approve of aims and disapprove of methods at the same time. It obviously is.

 

[chilango]

R.I.P.

Damn. I was just about to post that . 'D

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

tbh the popular consensus, if there is one, regarding the suffragettes and their arson and bombing campaigns in the UK is often based on myths and misunderstandings. (There is no such consensus among historians.) Most of the women who campaigned for women's suffrage in the UK opposed the violence of the minority, and it is far from clear that their tactics advanced the cause.

Setting aside the morality of killing random people in the name of a political cause, its effectiveness is also open to question.

 

[platinumsage]

Indeed.

What I’m taking issue with platinumsage over is whether it’s possible to both approve of aims and disapprove of methods at the same time. It obviously is.

What I said originally, which got me told to fuck off, was that if the argument prevails, eventually the public will retrospectively gloss over the methods. I maintain this point. When the suffragettes or ANC come up in polite conversation or in the news, is it common to hear about civilian casualties from the bombings?

Obviously the Unabomber's ideas haven't prevailed so far, but I'm interested in how the he seems to get some sympathy because he said some stuff about tech. We've already on this thread had 'political validity, not as bad as mass shooters, look at what Obama did' etc. Elsewhere on this board people defend the IRA bombing campaign "because the British army were killing civilians".

 

[danny la rouge]

Elsewhere on this board people defend the IRA bombing campaign

I’ve strenuously called the IRA campaign anti-working class on these boards in the past. I continue to believe that.

 

[equationgirl]

Personally, I give him a tiny bit of sympathy because of being fucked up by a psychiatrist during the MKULTRA stuff whilst at uni. He was already vulnerable, having skipped a couple of grades so ended up at uni at 16.

I don't think he stood a chance.

I am not condoning what he did or how he did it. But I can understand why.

 

[NoXion]

Good riddance. What's astonishing to me is how many people, who live comfortable lives thanks largely to technology, think that murderous wretch had any kind of valid point. No he didn't. Any ideology in which its primary proponent believed that sending bombs to unsuspecting civilian targets is the best way to advance it, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Personally, I give him a tiny bit of sympathy because of being fucked up by a psychiatrist during the MKULTRA stuff whilst at uni. He was already vulnerable, having skipped a couple of grades so ended up at uni at 16.

That wasn't MKULTRA, that was something else. Kaczynski himself has disputed the impact of the experiment in question:

The truth is that in the course of the Murray study there was one and only one unpleasant experience. It lasted about half an hour and could not have been described as “torture” even in the loosest sense of the word. Mostly the Murray study consisted of interviews and the filling-out of pencil-and-paper personality tests. The CIA was not involved.

 

[danny la rouge]

Personally, I give him a tiny bit of sympathy because of being fucked up by a psychiatrist during the MKULTRA stuff whilst at uni. He was already vulnerable, having skipped a couple of grades so ended up at uni at 16.

I don't think he stood a chance.

I am not condoning what he did or how he did it. But I can understand why.

Absolutely.

It’s perfectly possible to have sympathy for and compassion for someone whose beliefs one disagrees with and whose actions one disapproves of.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Personally, I give him a tiny bit of sympathy because of being fucked up by a psychiatrist during the MKULTRA stuff whilst at uni. He was already vulnerable, having skipped a couple of grades so ended up at uni at 16.

I don't think he stood a chance.

I am not condoning what he did or how he did it. But I can understand why.

This is fair enough. I'm not really interested in condemning him personally. But I am very much interested in condemning the idea of him that floats around. It's not a coincidence that he was an influence on Anders Breivik.

 

[chilango]

I had (have?) a visceral solidarity for Ted.

...I don't support, and didn't at the time, what he did. But I got where he was coming from. Far more than I'm happy with tbqh.

 

[equationgirl]

Good riddance. What's astonishing to me is how many people, who live comfortable lives thanks largely to technology, think that murderous wretch had any kind of valid point. No he didn't. Any ideology in which its primary proponent believed that sending bombs to unsuspecting civilian targets is the best way to advance it, isn't worth the paper it's written on.



That wasn't MKULTRA, that was something else. Kaczynski himself has disputed the impact of the experiment in question:

Perhaps it was the forerunner to MKULTRA, and Ted Kaczynzski himself is not always a reliable narrator, as shown during his trial.

I didn't know that he was a suspect for the Chicago Tylenol murders as well.

 

[NoXion]

Perhaps it was the forerunner to MKULTRA, and Ted Kaczynzski himself is not always a reliable narrator, as shown during his trial.

I didn't know that he was a suspect for the Chicago Tylenol murders as well.

Kaczynski may have been an unreliable narrator, but that doesn't mean he necessarily had any long-standing mental issues that contributed to his bombing campaign. I've just tried Googling to find out if there was any kind of mental assessment done of the man during or around his trial, but I've been unable to find anything relevant. Lots of guff unfortunately.

 

[danny la rouge]

I had (have?) a visceral solidarity for Ted.

...I don't support, and didn't at the time, what he did. But I got where he was coming from. Far more than I'm happy with tbqh.

That goes further than I would.

I don’t really know where he was coming from. I’ve read articles and watched TV programmes, and I have compassion for him, not least because of the damage that was done to him, but I won’t be reading his manifesto. Killing and injuring innocent civilians to get your dissertation read is not the way to make me want to read your dissertation.

 

[chilango]

That goes further that I would.

I don’t really know where he was coming from. I’ve read articles and watched TV programmes, and I have compassion for him, not least because of the damage that was done to him, but I won’t be reading his manifesto. Killing and injuring innocent civilians to get your dissertation read is not the way to make me read your dissertation.

I don't disagree.

My head says, as it always did, "You can't blow up a social relationship".

But I've been in enough dark places where rage and hopelessness and despair have led to a gut reaction of "Burn it all down".

That's not right. But I'm not going to deny having had those moments.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't disagree.

My head says, as it always did, "You can't blow up a social relationship".

But I've been in enough dark places where rage and hopelessness and despair have led to a gut reaction of "Burn it all down".

That's not right. But I'm not going to deny having had those moments.

Fair enough. There is a dark side to the human psyche. We mostly know not to act on it, though.

My issue here is your use of the word “solidarity”. For me that’s an active and targeted verb. It’s the same reason I have trouble with the blanket term “prisoner solidarity”. Yes, I can have solidarity with prisoners, but I want to know (as I always do, whoever it is) reasons, methods and objectives.

 

[chilango]

Fair enough. There is a dark side to the human psyche. We mostly know not to act on it, though.

My issue here is your use of the word “solidarity”. For me that’s an active and targeted verb. It’s the same reason I have trouble with the blanket term “prisoner solidarity”. Yes, I can have solidarity with prisoners, but I want to know (as I always do, whoever it is) reasons, methods and objectives.

Fair point

I did qualify it as "visceral solidarity" in an attempt to locate/distinguish it.

 

[The39thStep]

R.I.P.

Are we doing a Just Giving?

 

[tim]

Fuck you too, I did no such thing.

People were stating that his claims about technology had some validity, and others were condemning his actions. I simply made the point that you can't view the two things in isolation - if society ever accepts his claims they will accept his actions.

I read the first few pages of his "Manifesto". Anyone who sees any merit in his "claims" is a fool.

 

[tim]

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.

The comparisons you make with the oppressed resisting oppression. The aim of the the dead bomber was to kill people and then use blackmail to force his cranky and oppressive, volkish, eco-fascist world view on others.

 

[platinumsage]

The comparisons you make with the oppressed resisting oppression. The aim of the the dead bomber was to kill people and then use blackmail to force his cranky and oppressive, volkish, eco-fascist world view on others.

Yes, the oppressed in my comparisons were resisting oppression by bombing random innocent people. I'm not sure that makes their actions less reprehensible than those of the Unabomber. That's why I made the comparison.

 

[xenon]

I have nothing useful to contribute. Know next to nothing about this guy. Just assumed some wacko terrorist from the 70s, part of the tail end of hippydom, burn out / gone wrong.

 

[krtek a houby]

The comparisons to the IRA, imho, don't really hold. He wasn't doing what he did to combat genuine oppressions and discrimination. Not that his concerns weren't valid.

Will say that he holds a fascination for folks all along the political spectrum.

But his provocations seem to be less immediately impactive (tech and environmental) than what the IRA were motivated by.

Anyway, it's so many layered and have no doubt that he's going to be immortalised in some circles (esp in the US).

 

[equationgirl]

Kaczynski may have been an unreliable narrator, but that doesn't mean he necessarily had any long-standing mental issues that contributed to his bombing campaign. I've just tried Googling to find out if there was any kind of mental assessment done of the man during or around his trial, but I've been unable to find anything relevant. Lots of guff unfortunately.

He fired his trial lawyers because he didn't want to follow their strategy of pleading not guilty due to insanity. He was very prickly around any suggestion of mental health issues. I'm not denying he had mental health issues of some kind, nor that he was in a dark place.

He's written about the impact of technology on society, decades before some of it ever existed, that's what I think he had a point about. I don't agree with his methods, he was a domestic terrorist before the FBI even thought of the term. I don't agree with him killing people.

And I don't think having compassion for someone who was experimented on by a psychiatrist when he was vulnerable makes me a fool.

 

[equationgirl]

Possibly the most infamous mathematician ever, and not for his mathematical knowledge.

 

[Serge Forward]

I’m an anarchist, and I very much do not approve of those anarchists in the 19th century who carried out “propaganda by deed” attacks either. For clarity.

And let's not forget...
You can’t blow up a social relationship

PS: Kaczynski was a cunt. That is all.