Monitoring is much less efficient than coming in and starting the discussion. If someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you find a bunch of people plotting violence/terrorist groups/etc, would you not use IQfy as a honeypot? It's hilariously naive to not consider the possibility that a person asking for active organizations that support a domestic terrorist's message may not be in good faith. I'm sorry you've been so sheltered.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Except Kaczynski foresaw that, and even anticipates government agents spying on such an organization, which is why he explicitly warns that everything about that organization must be by the book.
Regardless, even if there are feds in this thread, why can't we discuss a book on this literature board?
Monitoring is much less efficient than coming in and starting the discussion. If someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you find a bunch of people plotting violence/terrorist groups/etc, would you not use IQfy as a honeypot? It's hilariously naive to not consider the possibility that a person asking for active organizations that support a domestic terrorist's message may not be in good faith. I'm sorry you've been so sheltered.
The type of organization that Kaczynski outlines in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is strictly legal.
"The pattern is consistent and the lesson is clear: A radical group can never safely assume that its plans or its activities are unknown to the government. Thus, a legal revolutionary organization is well advised to remain exactly that: strictly legal. Any sort of dabbling in illegal activities is extremely dangerous. "
-Anti-Tech Revolution, page 184
"Since we’ve already emphasized that a revolutionary organization committed to open, political action should maintain strict legality (section 27), it follows that the members of such an organization should avoid any involvement in illegal actions by radical environmentalists."
-Anti-Tech Revolution, page 185
I mean the writings aside from ISAIF would be whatever he managed to communicate from prison, it's not like he could plainly tell you to do illegal things, read between the lines
I think independent of whether Ted was trying to communicate subliminal threats of violence in his writing, he clearly sees a use for legal activities as well, which is the subject of this thread.
I've read it. IMO it's his best book with his best arguments but they're based on society-level arguments of why a technological society is bad long term instead of individual-level arguments of why living in a technological society is unfulfilling.
LOL You have got to be joking! That is the most desperate non-criticism criticism I've ever read. They guy just says it "seems crazy".. no argumentation, no evidence. Then he completely glosses over all the arguments Kaczynski made about the impossibility of rationally predicting and controlling society. If that's the best thing critics of Kaczynski can come up with they truly are desperate.
Also, does anyone know of any active organizations in line with Ted's message in this book?
Wilderness Front
www.wildernessfront.com
Thank you. That was exactly what I was looking for.
Absolutely glowing
Tired meme. No one cares about lil anon's teenage anarchist tendencies on IQfy.org.
Ted isn't an anarchist, though.
I'm merely saying that nobody is monitoring anything. Perhaps on /misc/ but def not here
It'd be funny if a bunch of feds were monitoring this board and all they ended up with was an appreciation for the Greeks.
Monitoring is much less efficient than coming in and starting the discussion. If someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you find a bunch of people plotting violence/terrorist groups/etc, would you not use IQfy as a honeypot? It's hilariously naive to not consider the possibility that a person asking for active organizations that support a domestic terrorist's message may not be in good faith. I'm sorry you've been so sheltered.
Except Kaczynski foresaw that, and even anticipates government agents spying on such an organization, which is why he explicitly warns that everything about that organization must be by the book.
Regardless, even if there are feds in this thread, why can't we discuss a book on this literature board?
You are asked for "active organizations in line with [domestic terrorist]'s message". You are glowing.
The type of organization that Kaczynski outlines in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is strictly legal.
"The pattern is consistent and the lesson is clear: A radical group can never safely assume that its plans or its activities are unknown to the government. Thus, a legal revolutionary organization is well advised to remain exactly that: strictly legal. Any sort of dabbling in illegal activities is extremely dangerous. "
-Anti-Tech Revolution, page 184
"Since we’ve already emphasized that a revolutionary organization committed to open, political action should maintain strict legality (section 27), it follows that the members of such an organization should avoid any involvement in illegal actions by radical environmentalists."
-Anti-Tech Revolution, page 185
In line with his message in a book explicitly designed to only engage in legal action.
Except if you actually read the book, Ted makes it explicit that all activity of such organizations should be strictly legal.
I mean the writings aside from ISAIF would be whatever he managed to communicate from prison, it's not like he could plainly tell you to do illegal things, read between the lines
I think independent of whether Ted was trying to communicate subliminal threats of violence in his writing, he clearly sees a use for legal activities as well, which is the subject of this thread.
I've read it. IMO it's his best book with his best arguments but they're based on society-level arguments of why a technological society is bad long term instead of individual-level arguments of why living in a technological society is unfulfilling.
Have you ever read anything that deals with the individual-level effects of technology in a similar vein.
I've read Ellull's The Technological Society which touches on it in parts, but it's not the focus.
>literal who twitter moron says something
>must be true
He obviously didn't read it if his main argument to make people even more reliant on tech. Besides, imaginary technology isn't an argument.
What's wrong with people being more reliant on tech if people get to experience superhuman bliss because of it?
Ted's collapse theory is weak.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/kaczynskis-collapse-theoryhtml
LOL You have got to be joking! That is the most desperate non-criticism criticism I've ever read. They guy just says it "seems crazy".. no argumentation, no evidence. Then he completely glosses over all the arguments Kaczynski made about the impossibility of rationally predicting and controlling society. If that's the best thing critics of Kaczynski can come up with they truly are desperate.
People need to be able to tell themselves that Kaczynski is crazy because if he's sane, that is far more unsettling.
That book is the most mind-expanding book i have ever read. It will stay with me for a long time.
That's somewhat how I feel about Technological Slavery, although the format of that book is discordant. Anti-Tech Revolution is more cohesive, though.
I can't wait to see how tye story ends in Technological Slavery, Vol. II
https://fitchmadison.com/product/technological-slavery-volume-two-tbdtheodore-john-kaczynski/
1