• toad@sh.itjust.works
    71·
    1 day ago

    My neurological disease happened after we moved near the highway. I hate vroomers more than anything. Just walk instead of poisonning the air, fatzo

  • 58008@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1133·
    3 days ago

    Has good points… decides the best way to bring those points to the world is planting bombs.

    Adam Lanza had some good points about autism (remember when he called into that radio show?). His subsequent expression of his feelings about the world was less than optimal. There’s no need to give the cunt kudos for his insights.

    This is some “say what you like about Hitler, but at least he made the trains run on time!” level of vacuous.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      11 hours ago

      Thing is, Hitler didn’t make the trains run on time. The Autovahn was already being build when the Nazis took power, which they then took credit for. Germany’s economy was basically a shell game of debt.

    • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
      193·
      2 days ago

      I mean, you’re not entirely wrong, but TK killed 3 and injured less than 30. Harry Truman killed vastly more people than TK and he’s essentially lauded, as most ex presidents are.

        • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 days ago

          Only positive thing he ever contributed to the world.

          Its a shame more of the people today that emulate him don’t commit fully and do the same thing, and just spare us all the bullshit suffering, before it inevitably finds itself there anyway, which it will…it always does eventually. Their way is not sustainable.

          They’re like the randoms I get playing chess online that refuse to lay down their fucking King when a mate is inevitable. They’ll even say as much in the game chat. Like for fucks sake, can we not?

    • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
      19·
      2 days ago

      I’m not saying that bombs were a good or acceptable idea, but I am saying that if it weren’t for the bombs, none of us would have read that manifesto to consider this post.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.ukEnglish
        10·
        2 days ago

        As time goes on I realise that terrorists do in fact win a lot of the time and sustained campaigns of violence do in fact achieve their goals in a lot of cases. Which is fucking depressing.

    • osanna@lemmy.vgEnglish
      131·
      3 days ago

      yeah, no matter their points, they still killed people. Fuck 'em.

  • Comrade_Spood@quokk.auEnglish
    13611·
    3 days ago

    To all the people in the comments being like “Ted had some good points.” Judi Bari, Peter Kropotkin, and Murray Bookchin are all people who have written about environmentalism and the problems of technology, industrialization, and such and better than the reactionary psychopath did. Fascists love the unabomber and use him to normalize eco-fascism. Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.

    • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
      313·
      2 days ago

      To be clear, he was not an eco fascist, he stood against fascism. But he was en eco terrorist.

      Not really enjoying this trend of everything being labelled as “fascism” these days.

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        12·
        2 days ago

        For real. It waters down the meaning of the word “fascist,” and now when I talk about actual fascism (with a well-informed take because I only use that word when I’m applying it correctly), people don’t take me seriously because they think I’m just “labeling everyone you disagree with as a fascist.”

        I’m not. I disagree with everyone I label as a fascist, yes. Because I disagree with fascism and I only label fascists fascists. But I’m perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without labeling them a fascist, if they’re not a fascist. I do it all the time!

      • Comrade_Spood@quokk.auEnglish
        613·
        2 days ago

        Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. I don’t really care if the duck says its not a duck and that it is against ducks, its still a duck. When you go about blaming the lefties (of which he labelled fascists as leftists) and the gays, and envisioning a society that would functionally genocide a bunch of people I am gonna call you a fascist. Cause if we just got rid of technology and returned to primitive living, a lot of people would die. Namely disabled people and people with chronic illnesses. It is indirect eugenics. Its exactly why most anarchists nowadays do not associate with anarcho-primitivists, and call them eco-fascists as well.

        The reason why people like Bookchin and Bari are better is because they critique industrialization while putting forward solutions that don’t kill a bunch of people.

        And lets not pretend like fascism is this coherent or cohesive ideology. Its an ideology of opportunism. Mussolini and Hitler were vastly different, and even just comparing Mussolini’s writing to his actions there’s a lot of differences. For example Mussolini’s writings were anti-monarchist, yet the monarchy remained in fascist Italy because it gave him an opportunity.

        Ted might not have been a fascist directly, but his ideology is not incompatible with fascism. And the consequences of his ideology is still genocide, even if indirectly.

    • CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world
      537·
      3 days ago

      Uhhhhh

      Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points

      Doesn’t this inherently imply he does in fact have good points if they’re making the same points… you also make a good point that there’s better sources that don’t come with a ton of ideology baggage but what your saying here is yes he does have good points but read someone else saying his points instead

    • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
      23·
      3 days ago

      there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.

      Seems like a great reason to discuss Ted’s viewpoints. We should definitely discuss the ineffectual extremists. Compare and contrast. Weigh and measure. That’s what truth-seekers do. Telling people not to read a particular author borders on censorship.

      But asking people to expand their reading list and providing actual recommendations - that is wonderful and commendable. Thank you for that!

      • Comrade_Spood@quokk.auEnglish
        116·
        3 days ago

        I never said don’t read it, but comparing and contrasting is not what is happening. Its like when Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto or whatever was making the rounds and everyone was like “ya know he makes some good points.” Everyone just keeps parroting the points of far-right extremists cause they pointed out a pretty universal issue like imperialism, consumerism, environmental destruction, etc. If the only perspective that gets spread is that of a far-right nutjob, then it normalizes the problematic parts of their perspective. Its always just begins and ends with “the unabomber made some good points.” Not “the unabomber made some good points, but Bookchin is more practical and not a eco-fascist.”

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          7·
          2 days ago

          Was the unabomber far-right? He seemed to hate industry with a passion. That doesn’t sound very far-right…

          I’m not saying he’s a role model that we should emulate, and I disagree with his methods. But that doesn’t mean we should reject his ideas. Stalin was a terrible statesman and a brutal dictator, but philosophically he had some points worth discussing.

          Lumping people into this category of being “untouchable” is not only an ad-hominem, but it’s also damaging, because it prevents people from engaging with the material critically and in environments where there’s a diversity of perspectives. Now the only people who read Stalin are the radical edgelords who are disillusioned with western society and so take everything he says uncritically at face value. It wouldn’t have the same allure if we didn’t make it something in the “restricted section.”

          It’s perfectly valid to say “Ted’s actions were wrong, but some of his ideas are worth considering.”

  • Norin@lemmy.world
    1441·
    3 days ago

    It’s probably better to read the philosophers Uncle Ted was pulling from (and ultimately failed to understand).

    Ellul especially.

    • dgdft@lemmy.worldEnglish
      372·
      3 days ago

      Might be a matter of taste, but ISAIF is worth a read on the basis of its wild mix of sociological brilliance and unhingedness IMO. That’s not to say I endorse blowing people up in the slightest, but the work stands taller than the sum of its influences.

      E.g. I think he synthesized and added to quite a few different authors in presenting his concept of oversocialization. (Please do correct me if I’m off-base — I love philosophy but it’s not my main wheelhouse).

          • three@lemmy.zipBanned
            747·
            3 days ago

            You enjoy doing extra work? Why not explain the gibberish acronym in the first comment?

            Oh! I’m soooo sorry! I thought everyone wrote their dissertation on Ted “My First Love” Kaczynski?

            Listen to yourself, you sound ridiculous.

            • dgdft@lemmy.worldEnglish
              37·
              3 days ago

              It’s just off-the-cuff writing without copyediting. Tad sloppy, but weird hate, homie.

              E: To squarely address my view of Teddy K, he’s in the same bucket as Karl Marx, Otto Von Bismarck, Rasputin, etc. Not someone whose core values I share, or think is a good person — but a historically interesting character who has cultural symbolic importance for the role they played in their respective time and place.

            • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
              64·
              3 days ago

              As a person of average intelligence, I knew exactly what the acronym was. Not sure the issue here.

              • three@lemmy.zipBanned
                15·
                2 days ago

                Very true, knowing random trivia is a sign of intelligence and definitely not a side product of you being terminally online.

      • Norin@lemmy.world
        26·
        3 days ago

        Ted misses a lot in Jacques Ellul’s The Technological Society, which is where I’d start off f your looking for philosophers critical of modern technology.

        If you’re curious on that particular subject, I’d also recommend Lewis Mumford’s Myth of the Machine or The City in History.

        Or, for something that’s less of a tome (both Ellul and Mumford can be overly wordy), Ivan Illich’s Tools for Conviviality is incredibly critical of the modern world, but also offers hope that isn’t based on mailing bombs to universities.

        • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          2 days ago

          Ellul is a wonderful author, very inspiring. As someone inspired both by Christianity and anarchism, he’s one of the authors in my personal pantheon.

          Just don’t read his texts about Israel.

        • ggtdbz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          4·
          2 days ago

          Huh. I picked that up from a used book stand on a whim just based on the tile and skimming it, like ten years ago. I should probably read it.

  • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    86·
    3 days ago

    The longer I work in tech, the more I want to move to a farm 50km from neighbours with just me, my partner, a couple dogs, chickens, and cows.

    • THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      3 days ago

      The longer I work in tech exist, the more I want to move to a farm 50km from neighbours with just me, my partner, a couple dogs, chickens, and cows.

      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
        61·
        2 days ago

        It’s a common escapist fantasy but are you equipped to handle the needs of chickens and cows?

        • Rugnjr@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          4·
          2 days ago

          It’s a common criticism but do you think a reasonably smart person couldn’t struggle through it? I reckon they’d be especially likely to succeed if they were equipped with a good book and some humility. Humility can’t be given but pieces of advice can. Do you have any good ones?

          • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
            41·
            2 days ago

            Well there’s that word, “struggle”, do you think the average city dweller raised on video games and car trips to Walmart really understands where food comes from, or how?

            • stickly@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 days ago

              I think if you gave them a year or two of runway with wikipedia and some YouTube tutorials they could figure it out. It’s not black magic

              • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
                1·
                2 days ago

                And in this scenario, they still have access to normal levels of food and energy during that year?

                Then, what, pray tell, is their impetus?

                • stickly@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  1 day ago

                  You don’t have to walk out of your job immediately and never come back to fulfill the escapist fantasy. Full homesteading and flying a plane are both pretty lofty goals but people don’t hop in an aircraft without hours of practice and planning.

    • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
      24·
      3 days ago

      “The more I work in tech, the more I wish I was independently wealthy.”

      I love how people use the word “just” when making statements about the simple life.

      Simple ain’t always cheap…

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        14·
        2 days ago

        Simple ain’t easy either. Fix yer plumbing, fix yer roof, fix yer fence, feed yer chickens (yes, every day!), clean their poop, etc. etc. etc.

        Homesteading is a lot of work, and you can’t just go away for a weekend to visit a friend or explore a new city. It needs constant attention, and the more “independent/self-reliant/off-the-grid” you want to be, the more you need to do everything yourself.

        And even then you need to buy supplies and materials. You’re not going to grow a year’s-worth of food in your backyard vegetable patch, and you’re not gonna make your own lumber, pvc, copper wire, etc.

        There’s a lot you can do to achieve a greater degree of independence, but ultimately it’s still dependencies all the way down.

        Even the Buddha recognized the interconnectedness of everything in the world; he wasn’t just some detached stoic with a community of self-sustaining monks. They depended on the generosity of their surrounding communities, and to this day Buddhist monks still do.

        • stickly@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 days ago

          A lot depends on how many luxuries you can go without. Tiny house means less work; no modern plumbing means no maintenence; ditch big hvac systems and only worry about heating/cooling a room or two; no indoor wiring needed if you only have a couple solar lamps. Yeah you’ll still have some reliance on getting stuff you can’t fabricate but it will be much less stuff

          Livestock complicates things a bunch but it can be easier if you’re OK living off a simpler vegetarian diet and putting in the upfront legwork for more durable/low maintenance food sources (native food forest).

          Your life might be dark and shitty but it will definitely be simpler and easier. But if you want to optimize for a higher QoL you’ll probably have to join a cultist farm commune.

            • stickly@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 days ago

              Not necessarily, but one focused on an extreme primitivist lifestyle probably are. People generally don’t coordinate maximum isolation from society without some ulterior motives.

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                1·
                2 days ago

                And why not? Society has lots of problems. If people want to live their lives in some alternative way, why shouldn’t they be able to? Why shouldn’t those people be able to gather in one place and form communities, as long as those communities don’t become abusive?

                Abusive power dynamics exist in society writ large. Why do we single out communes and say they’re bad, while we ignore how coercive and manipulative the average corporation is?

                This whole idea that “communes are bad because they remove people from society” is based on the capitalist lie that people need to work and produce value for the owner-caste, and that any other lifestyle is a wasted life.

                Why can’t people who want to be isolated from society be isolated from society?

                • stickly@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  1 day ago

                  The problem isn’t living lives in an alternative way, it’s that a full rejection of society requires an insular and opaque lifestyle. You don’t get qualified inspectors telling you your house is a fire hazard, you don’t have access to medical professionals or diagnostic equipment, any education/information/opinions become warped/inbred/outdated over time, lack of suitable elder care or child care (depending on demographics), etc…

                  “As long as they don’t become abusive” is doing a ton of heavy lifting in your argument. Who’s getting let in to check for abuse? What recourse do people have to get help when they may not have transportation or phones? Are they really isolated from society if they must submit to our judgement? What measures could exist to correct abusive dynamics without external coercion?

                  A corporation can be bad (and they might not be punished) but at least that’s in the light of day. Regardless of how shitty things seem, I’d take a public discourse about our social ills over hushed whispers between abused wives and children. We can openly debate about the pros and cons of leaving society but such seditious talk could cost you your livelihood if the leaders of a commune think you’re not all in.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      15·
      3 days ago

      you should look at open land out in deep rural areas.

      you’re more likely to kill yourself than get a farm these days.

      not since the corporations bought up all the farm land.

    • ragingHungryPanda@piefed.keyboardvagabond.comEnglish
      9·
      3 days ago

      Around COVID times, I had a coworker who bought a 100+ year old farmhouse out in Minnesota and we could see over time how he was fixing it up. Then he quit and started his homestead. Enviable man.

      but yeah, I’ve heard of a lot of people in tech quitting at 20 years, which seems high? but at around 13+ years, I get it. I just don’t really know what I’d go to

    • osanna@lemmy.vgEnglish
      2·
      3 days ago

      are you sure you don’t want spyware in your house? Are you sure you don’t want new shinies?! daddy oligarchs told me that was the most important thing in life.

  • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
    28·
    3 days ago

    Did you know that Northrup Grumman developed the standard USPS mail truck? They also developed the B2 stealth bomber. Northrup never intended for their truck to also be a stealth bomber, but Ted said “I’m about to do what’s called a ‘pro gamer’ move.”