He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't be reading it, regardless of its merits.
2) people reading the comment will think "maybe this is not the way to make people read my stuff"
FWIW, I'm actually made more curious when people discourage me from reading something, so they may want to rethink the actual impact of that strategy.
Some people fear the same applies to mad bombers and school shooters and terrorists: If misbehaving gets you in the news, makes you famous and gets books written about you...
Just as school shootings used to be a good way to get your face on TV, murder is a good way to market your manifesto. We can fix that.
It's quite simple logic really. The less attention terrorists get, the less appealing terrorism becomes as a means to get attention.
See also: "The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized." https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2006/08/refuse_to_b...
In a world lead by pr and marketing, we now see ourselves as extensions of this thought controlling manipulative system. It is socially responsible to evaluate your behaviour as something that will either encourage or discourage good behavior and thought in other people. I think it's an intellectually stunted way to think. You close it off because you've decided it's bad. I don't think he should have tried to kill people, he was mentally unwell, but are you saying there is no circumstance in which violence is necessary? Is the act of violence so abhorrent that it discounts his politics? Nelson Mandela was a 'terrorist'. You know the old saying, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Be careful you're not limiting what you think and feel based on a load of capitalist marketing rules.
It would be totally unfair to criticise a piece of anarcho primitivist writing by saying "I'm not reading this, this is what Ted Kaczynski believed".
But Kaczynski murdered people to get his ideas read - I don't want that to be a way that political ideas make it into the mainstream.
If the ideas are good enough they can stand on their own two feet - plenty of not unabombers have written similar stuff so why not have articles about them?
Also I feel like the majority of political systems discourage letter bombing as a marketing technique - it's not unique to capitalism.
I'm not saying that not wanting people to be blown up is uniquely capitalist. What I am saying is that people seeing the _value_ of their actions as whether they encourage or discourage good or bad behavior is very capitalist. It's also arrogant, self centred and intellectually moribund.
Except that it didn't. Anarcho-primitivism was fringe, and it's still fringe. Maybe you could say that it changed the way anarcho-primitivists thought about stuff a little bit, but that could've been achieved without murdering people. It doesn't take much effort to "get a message out" to a tiny community of intellectually-curious thinkers.
Considering everything fair game regardless of it's origins or consequences feels extremely capitalist to me (well probably libertarian - but I don't feel like capitalist is a particularly well defined ideology).