Come on, you can’t find something to support your ideas that doesn’t help glorify random murders?
Come on, you can’t find something to support your ideas that doesn’t help glorify random murders?
you’re talking about the unabomber like he’s a victim of cancel culture instead of a guy that killed 3 people and maimed a dozen more
If this were a unique idea not repeated since by others, I'd be more likely to agree with you... but it's not.
If you were recommending this reading as a cautionary tale about extremism, I'd also be more inclined to agree with you.
But in reality, all of the information found in the unabomber's manifesto can be found from sources that weren't serial murderers... so what does recommending this writing, and not other related writing accomplish? from my perspective it only serves the murderer. The original publication of the manifesto was also forced under the threat of murder.
You're trying to shift the burden of justification to me, when you are the one trying to censor.
What does censoring me accomplish in the real world?
Does me talking about him make his murders worse then they are?
Are Kaczynski's murders going to disappear once every single person stops talking about him?
Why should I even bother figuring out alternative sources, what difference does it make in the real world whether I talk about him or about any other anarcho-primitivist?