This man has lived to never hear a single argument refuting his ideas and yet he is more known from his Netflix series than his actual manifesto. How can something so bulletproof not be more widely discussed?
This man has lived to never hear a single argument refuting his ideas and yet he is more known from his Netflix series than his actual manifesto.
I don't even like Ted and the answer is obvious to me: feds discrediting his manifesto and pushing cheap entertainment over serious investigation of his philosophy
There's a Netflix series? Tell me its name right now!
gay alert
His fans are usually trannies 9/10
There, I refuted it
>His fans are usually trannies 9/10
Demoralizing gaslighting tactics, nice try schlomo.
>AI kills us
He was right
>We get the best of both worlds, AI serves us to be living the best experiences reality has to offer
He was wrong
Which will it be?
AI as technology kills who we are and turns us into something else,
AI serves us and we become those guys from wall-e.
these both can happen at the same time
We no longer need memory since we have phones and notebooks etc. etc. ergo sum we are reducing ourselves as humans by employing technology instead of relying on our biology to overcome, reducing the need for biology and thus creating biological imperative to become low iq mouthbreathers.
https://qualiacomputing.com/2017/12/20/the-universal-plot-part-i-consciousness-vs-pure-replicators/
The manifesto is not about pleasure. It is about effort and its fruit, satisfaction. Having a dismissive tone doesn't give your argument any additional weight and that guy generally just sounds like an obnoxious know it all
>it isn't about pleasure
>it's about satisfaction
????
What's your point? Just like there's a difference between happiness in holding your firstborn son and happiness when eating mcnuggets
Satisfaction isn't pleasure and pleasure is nowhere near effort. If you don't understand the positive feelings associated with exerting effort, then of course you don't understand the unabomber's writings.
>and obviously fixable with neurotech.
Oh my fricking science... you mean the government can fix me and morph me into their ideal human 2.0 that loves urban america and barcades?!
Why do these kind of people believe Buddhists are on their side? You're literally making a hell on Earth for ALL life and not just humans.
Found the Christian. Hail fellow accuser!
I'm not a Christian stupid homosexual. Anti-modernity is the only logical position to take as a Buddhist.
Buddhists are cucked gays anyways
Not Zen Buddhists.
Western people largely dont understand Buddhism, like at all. They think its all about peace and love and all that hippy shit.
Buddha did have some choice quotes about women and their role in society. But this homie is even wiser
Try telling them about all the Buddhists hells where you're tortured for millions of years for being sinful.
Buddhist is also the only religion that explicitly says you will go to hell for having an abortion.
I like Gomez, his ideas however are something else.
>use neurotech to “cure” feeling suffocated by technology
Poignant.
>muh feelings
Not an argument
>obviously fixable with neurotech
Jesus Christ lmao
>hedonistic treadmill impossible to overcome
>no problem, we're just gonna turn you into a corporation/government controlled vegetable using neurotech
https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/kaczynskis-collapse-theoryhtml
He is btfo by the first comment on his own article. He's just projecting his own patterns of thought onto Kazynski in the form of a straw man.
I wonder how he would feel to know that the only people who really buy into what he said are just as big if not bigger outcasts than him, yet even they manage to make it in society
Refuted and expanded upon by Ellul before TK ever picked up a pen
I read his manifesto back when it was first released. I found an obvious flaw in his logic that ended up demolishing his whole argument. I don't care enough to reread the thing to remember what the fatal flaw was. He's just another idiot who thought he was smart because he didn't interact with other people.
>He's just another idiot who thought he was smart because he didn't interact with other people.
I feel attacked
Such a delicate flower.
Yeah I recall that too but I also had a counter to that fatal flaw. Can't remember it now
What a waste of a post
Ted's whole philosophy is primitive. It's just yeoman frontiersman ideology raging against the encroachment of modern urban hellscapes while aping the rhetorical style of New Left terrorists. In a way I can understand where he's coming from but there are better critics of techno modernity than Ted, some who are even bleaker than Ted (Heidegger, Ellul, Ivan Illich, Bernard Stiegler).
>just read 10,000 pages of philosophy to find out why ted kaczinski is wrong in his 20 page manifesto that every yeoman of every pofession can read and understand
I don't think that's the 'own' you seem to think it is
>nooo too many things are outside of my control in the modern world
And that wouldn't be a problem living as a hunter gatherer?
>no no you don't get it bro it's because it's other people who have the control
So what? If the factors are outside your control, it seem irrelevant what they are.
>no bro shut the frick up you don't get it having other people outside of your control with power over you is extremely psychologically distressing and not in the same way as the environment having power over you
This sounds like a "you" problem
>nooooo aaaaaah shut the frick up I'll mail you a bomb
(OP)
Look up American Airlines Flight 444. Ted was an indiscriminate mass murderer who just wanted the thrill of killing innocent people. He literally targeted random citizens, members of the public who just bought a ticket to a commercial airline. Total psychopath, if he actually cared about his argument, he literally would have been better off just publishing it as an obscure academic work.
we're all guilty. big deal.
There is no such thing as universal guilt. People integrate into the systems they find themselves in. That does not equal guilt for the existence of those systems.
Well, Son coincidences and conspiracies are actually all a part of God's plan. If you want it then take it. I know you deep down inside you are the biggest coward of the unknown Lord.
In a few decades when we're all starving or dead everybody's gonna feel real stupid
>How can something so bulletproof not be more widely discussed?
Because The System wont allow it.
just attend a buddhist funeral, see how broken and hopeless they are and you'll see how useful it is.
>TeCHNoLoGy/THe INTeRNeT iS eViL.
His life refutes his ideas. Dan Bilzerian is a better philosopher.
Ted saw (not reasoned or predicted, he saw) things that were happening and will happen, beyond explicable horror, to the human individual and the human race. Things that justify total action against the system, at any cost, because otherwise the cost is you.
""There are in fact certain paradoxes involved in the notion of a system that predicts its own behavior. These are reminiscent of Russell's Paradox in set theory and of the paradoxes that arise when one allows a statement to talk about itself (e.g., consider the statement, "This statement is false").
When a system makes a prediction about its own behavior, that prediction may itself change the behavior of the system, and the change in the behavior of the system may invalidate the prediction. Of course, not every statement that talks about itself is paradoxical. For example, the statement,
"This statement is in the English language" makes perfectly good sense.
Similarly, many predictions that a system may make about itself will not be self-invalidating; they may even cause the system to behave in such a way as to fulfill the prediction. But it is too much to hope for that a society's predictions about itself will never be (unexpectedly) self-invalidating."
Ted is completely right in foreseeing the fall of the current system. The problem is that a system always generates another system, In fact, the prevailing system is just the large core of several overlapping cycles some starting as early as the beginning of written language. Technology's proliferation is the ultimate iteration in the growth of the virus that started with language. The epidemic is the toughest humanity has faced in recorded history. But as any other disease, it will pass. The severity implies the death/obliteration of the masses, the ones that couldn't "resist" technology. The few that still have self-control will survive, like immunity cells for a new humanity. Or rather an old one, since the deep trauma will remove the susceptible parts of the mind.
https://pastebin.com/P3rVFrue
>the solution to this problem is that people everywhere on the world have to revolt against technology exactly at the same moment, because otherwise countries with technology will immediately conquer countries without technology
good luck with that
I wonder how many trannies are disgusted with themselves deep down. I'm glad Ted saw through his autogynephilia or else he would have killed himself.
He will be a martyr in the inevitable revolt against the onslaught of the technological revolution
What made his opinion so unique in an ocean of millions of others? Why would this individual be worth taking seriously? Asking genuinely.
>entire Internet can't figure out a cogent rebuttal to basic negative utilitarianism and mass eco-terrorism (which would do incomprehendible damage to the environment if pulled off)
IQfy fell off fr
It isn't a thing that can be proven or disproven. Either the sentiment resonates with you or it doesn't. The extent to which our natural instincts as humans should be thwarted and oppressed by the system we create is hard to argue objectively because different people would be suited to different gradients of this.
>How can something so bulletproof not be more widely discussed
As you said, it's bulletproof. It's bulletproof because it is simple and straightforward, referring to the indisputable physical reality we see all around us.
Media and egotists thrive on pointless discussion, disconnected from reality, referring to ethereal issues like gender-identity and various political schisms where there is nothing tangible to anchor the argument to. It's an inexhaustible source of money and self-appraisal since nothing ever gets resolved in a discussion disconnected from fundamentals of reality. Kaczynski, for the most part, referred to fundamentals one cannot argue with. The media cannot afford discussions where one side wins and refuses to argue ad infinitum and you average pseudo-intellectualists wants to maintain the illusion made of jargon and unending back-and-forths.