Has anyone refuted his manifesto? I just finished reading it and can't find many good analyses or counterarguments of the book
also general ted thread, do you agree or disagree with his ideas
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Everything relevant he said (the power process) is just Marxist alienation for dummies.
>(the power process) is just Marxist alienation for dummies.
fpbp
He is closer to Freud in that he thinks less alienation goes together with a more competitive, chaotic and dangerous world. Marx thought you can get rid of alienation while preserving social cohesion, and have your cake and eat it too.
it's not really an intellectual question. you can't think of any good counterarguments because you aren't educated enough. it's a question of values and practicability.
Come up with some that are more than just “i like air conditioning and computers”
Ie a critique of his power process idea
power process just empirically isn't how humans work. this isn't something to be rationally argued. it's an idea and nothing more, a neat little formula to reduce all human psychology to. to think that he captured the secret of happiness is ridiculous.
Refuting means taking him seriously to begin with which academics can’t do because it gives his (mostly correct) analysis too much credence. So they spin the story of
>wow look at this crazy caveman guy who sent bombs to colleges and airports and wrote a manifesto about how technology is bad! He’s a wacky madman! Also he went to Harvard and had top-one-percent IQ isn’t that quirky?
It works better for the system that way
My refutation is that indoor plumbing and refrigerators are good things that make life better
Yeah, the main criticism of the manifesto is that it focuses completely on the negatives of technology.
While I still desire to have been born before the industrial revolution, my life is more comfortable than my ancestors.
the full on luddite mentality is easily broken by taking a single glance at the pros of modernity, but I agree with his take on the left. For example how generally a leftist protest is usually done in a harmful or violent manner, think of the classic example of tying yourself to a tree, laying down on the road etc despite that side being so anti-violence.
they are (or were) anti-violent in the traditional sense of violence. However, the hippy-movement's obsession with non-violence created a fetish around violence, and the only way to off-valve that pressure was strange forms of protests such as what you're bringing up. It still aggressive, but in a way that alienates the common person.
Another example is the Chinese. They will not engage in direct violence for whatever purpose, but they do in what is essentially passive violence, such as leaning into another forcefully, obstructing movement, or generally causing some disturbance.
However, I do not know if this is a quality of the left, or just the quality of a group that does not sit in a position of strength in a given hierarchy.
now read anti-tech revolution
ive been reading this little homosexuals blog for over 5 years and it is hillarious to see this 160 iq autist being so oblivious to sociology and general materialism. I guess being a sillicon valley based transhumanist kinda fuels into the whole capitalist ideology
>neurotech justifies the whole social order and mode of production, which are irrelevant historical factors
This is projection on their part, it's not that the social order is fixed and the current mode of production is insurmountable - they argue teleologically; neurotech has already overcome the contradictions of capitalism, we must now put it in production.
misses kaczynski's points and fails to understand what evolutionary pressure entails. it is not that these systems do not anticipate potential long term disasters, it is that short term strategies are more effective at being selected.
>they argue teleologically; neurotech has already overcome the contradictions of capitalism
What exactly is the counterargument to this? Regardless of what economic system you live under, unless the technology is banned, there's no reason why you couldn't genetically engineer people for maximum bliss. How exactly do the "contradictions of capitalism" refute Emilsson's and Pearce's philosophies?
>160 iq
Lmfao
God I hate this homosexual so much. Transhumanists deserve the rope.
>The entire premise of his argument depends on the hedonic treadmill being impossible to overcome.
I didn't get this impression at all. How does he reach this conclusion?
>Obviously fixable with neurotech
souless normoids consistently proving their opponents right is one of the funniest things to me. "To prevent people from being absorbed by hedonistic use of technology we'll just implant them with computer chips". Unreal.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/kaczynskis-collapse-theoryhtml
>Kaczynski dismisses the possibility that world-spanning competitors might anticipate the possibility of large correlated disasters, and work to reduce their frequency and mitigate their harms. He says that competitors can’t afford to pay any cost to prepare for infrequent problems, as such costs hurt them in the short run. This seems crazy to me, as most of the large competing systems we know of do in fact pay a lot to prepare for rare disasters. Very few correlated disasters are big enough to threaten to completely destroy the whole world. The world has had global scale correlation for centuries, with the world economy growing enormously over that time. And yet we’ve never even seen a factor of two decline, while at least thirty factors of two would be required for a total collapse. And while it should be easy to test Kaczynski’s claim in small complex systems of competitors, I know of no supporting tests.
idk if directly, but there are plenty of achademic stances that are flatly against in their methodological process and conclusions.
in fact anyone who asks
>has anyone refuted _
is probably moronic, because people tend not to focus their great projects solely on the refutation of another, but coming up with their own that might circumstantially disagree with another or brings up another they disagree with in passing as part of a larger diologue.
You ever took a second and wonder why there are threads with some permutation of
>has never been refuted
for practically EVERYONE known for writing something? From Guenon to marx, to plato, to some obscure 19th century italian no one has heard of? Its cause people of merit tend not to go on full discertational dismantling of everyone they might have disagreements with, even the greats, much less relative whos in all their specifics.
tldr: you are a moron. You would have a better time asking about refutations of certain points instead of an abstracted whole.
Well, you'd have to gear yourself up for a short and brutal life. Depending on how far back we want to roll this crazy thing, your first cracked molar could quickly spiral into a fairly miserable death. I dunno how far Ted takes it, especially in regards to medical science, which is heavily dependent on our current technological level.
he says to just let everyone with a medical defect die and then in a few generations it wont be a problem anymore even though that hast worked for the past few thousands of years humanity has been around and we needed post industrial science to get rid of things like polio and smallpox and what not, his example is diabetes though
and according to him true freedom is dying from stepping on a rusted piece of metal than having the chance to live because we developed tetanus shots
yeah some of his shit was good but he didnt make a convincing argument for blasting us back to the dark ages imo
I came up with an obvious refutation of his manifesto years ago when I read it, one that demolished his whole argument, but no one cared at the time, and I can't be bothered to read it again so I can remember what it was.
VGH proof by forgetfulness, the ultimate means
Pro-Ted people one the Internet seem like a contradiction to me, like someone who’s pro-abstinence hanging out in a brothel
Ted himself used technology to fight technology. He recognized that in large scale systems like ours that you need to fight fire with fire.
The nature of power, itself, is a refutation of this man's manifesto
Keith Woods took a swing at him. Philosophically, he argued that the hard physicalism necessary for Ted's concern that robots would replace humanity also leads to the conclusion that we don't need to actually avoid progress, since there should be no difference in the feelings generated by actually overthrowing technology and those generated by a sufficiently advanced program pumping you full of hormones.
He also talked a bit about his impracticality and also murder bad.
ahem the whole bomb thing invalidated all his writings
why?
you can't miss
I think his major problem is that he lacks an understanding of history and the role of secret societies as well as racial objectives.
The way technology is behaving to dehumanize people and maximize profits while incentivizing the creation of artificial abstractions to keep the system afloat has more to do with the israelites, freemasons and satanist running the modern world and its technology as well as enonomic structures because fundamentally they dont care about the consequences as long as it keeps them in power and everyone enslaved to them
Id also wager that the technological indsutrial system and its behaviours are part of the great work or NWO which was deliberately and meticulously thought out.
I think Kazinsky tries to portray it like an acident or the system is a kind of egregore that has perpetued itself but the reality is that there are very insidious and ruthless men who planned this system out with the intention of enslaving and exterminating people based on race/bloodlines
"Murder bad" is not a refutation btw
why did he murder those people though? wouldn't there be better ways to get his word out than killing seemingly random people?
No, there wasn’t. He weighed it accurately in his head and murdering a bunch of random low level computer salesmen in the Midwest was the rational course of action.
I can't tell if you're joking or not
even still, why not go after someone actually important to the system?
the word had been out for decades before he sent the first bomb. His books are littered with sources and citations. How many people have heard of any of those names and books, let alone read them?
Okay but did he try to get the word out by another method before bombing random people
you cant just print some books leave some copies in your local library, and then go "huh no ones reading them guess its time to start mailing bombs for a decade"
Just delete the "he killed people" part from your head and then analyze his words
This should not be difficult
then they would have to actually read the paper
The part about spanking children is definitely refuted, physical abuse is bad no matter how good it makes your peepee feel to hurt someone weaker than you.
Everything else is watertight though
you and he fell for the atheist -ism...
None of those -isms is supposed to work. All those -isms are pure ''thought experiments'' that atheist love to do in order to entertainment themselves.
It's daydreaming. Anarchism is a one of the hundred -isms made up by the bourgeois revolutionaries to saturate the political field in an attempt to make the plebeians stop thinking that kings were a thing. Atheists rewrite history this way.
With its moronic humanistically wishful-thinking non-aggression principle (NAP), Anarchism is literally the atheist fantasy of ''humanism of the bourgeois, without the legal republic of the bourgeois'' so it remains 100% controlled by bourgeois intellectuals. ie ''humanism is awesome''. And of course it can't be done in real life. It's literally a power fantasy for impotent beta cuck atheists. This is why it appeals to bugmen like troony-lover Ted Kazincky and veganally herd-follower Ayn Rand. Before atheists, anarchism never fricking existed and nobody ever though about this crappy religion (or ideology like atheists say, about their own religions).
If IQfy has taught us one thing, it's that no amount of counterarguments or evidence or logic will ever persuade a single person to change an opinion about a single thing.
No idea in the history of the world has ever been convincingly 'refuted' and its not clear what form such a 'refutation' could possibly take.
I regularly change my mind when presented with new information or ideas. Though it happens less often the more I read and hone in on what my 'real' view of the world is. Might become stubborn as a geezer tho.
>I regularly change my mind when presented with new information or ideas
I just retcon it so I believed the new thing all along. That way I always come out on top
im not concerned so much in whether it was refuted but rather what the arguments against it are, other than "murder bad" "refrigerators and medicine good" etcetera
>no amount of counterarguments or evidence or logic will ever persuade a single person to change an opinion about a single thing.
Yeah I'd tend to agree. I'd largely consider myself pretty flexible and open minded, but even then I doubt I've actually been convinced of anything on this site more than a handful of times.
Maybe I'm lying to myself and I'm actually just a brainlet, maybe this place just brings that out in people, maybe both.
Who's to say?
I think it's a flawless critique of industrialism for sure, but unfortunately his proposed solution just isn't practical. People won't just return to hunter gatherer lifestyles even if they agree. People are incredibly resistant to change and will prioritize convenience over almost anything if they can.
It's unfortunate but true.
>People are incredibly resistant to change and will prioritize convenience over almost anything
His point exactly. Just learn linear inhomogenous second-order PDEs, bro.
I'm a mathgay so I have that shit on lock already
i think he admits this much, but instead focuses on the idea that the system is likely to collapse on its own at some point, and that is the point where the revolution would have to occur
everything he said is true and whoever disagrees has no body hair
The only real way to refute him is in his solutions.
His solutions were generally pretty bad but the rest is accurate.
ted is the ultimate psued filter. he seems like he's got it all right until you do more general reading and thinking and then you see that he's interesting but wrong. if you're well-read, and if you consider yourself a careful, reasoned thinker, and you think ted's right, you're a brainlet
>psued
You are the midwit.
I have but I forgor