It’s fun to drop verbatim quotes from his manifesto into random internet discussions without attribution. A lot of people agree with his ideas without realizing it.
I don't think it implies any of that. The GP just means some people can't or won't separate the art from the artist.
"I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."
My post was a call for being smarter about who we invest in. I always wonder about people who call for separating art and artist over such mediocre artistry.
As the parent says in their reply below:
> My post was a call for being smarter about who we invest in.
Nobody said anything about a “final solution” or gulags.
“We can do better” and “calling for having taste” certainly seems to imply a command-economy approach to the marketplace of ideas.
If that’s not what you intended, what do you mean by “have taste” and “do better”?
No. This is a trunk of ideas, not a "marketplace of ideas." I have some wares in there. You can move on if none of it appeals to you.
I'm just some strings in your computer. I can't make you do anything. There's no policy work being done here.
What you said assumes that people will give up on that and jump to coercion. Maybe your cynicism is warranted.
I'm just going to make up an example: let's say the quote in question is "Democracy requires active participation." If I saw this posted by an anonymous internet commenter in a political discussion, I would completely agree. The obvious interpretation is that democracy works better when people vote, speak to your representative, organize, etc.
Now let's say the commenter reveals that this is a quote from a presidential assassin. Well, now I'm a little uncomfortable. Why did they choose this particular quote? Do they agree with the assassin's fringe definition of "active participation"? The intended meaning has completely changed with this new information. The identity of the author is part of the message, because we aren't talking about objectively true or false statements, we're talking about philosophical ideas that are much bigger than the quote provided.
A bit of a bait and switch. Get attention with something shocking and violent, then appeal to worries through apocalyptic boogeymen. The solution, of course, is a sense of comforting tradition that the naturalness of the past is safe. A killer combo!
"If freedom is short of weapons, we must compensate with willpower"
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people"
He was quite a speaker, old Adi.
...Which suggests (cpr. the "treasure" quote) how quote dropping is mostly a leisurely activity, given broad statements.
> I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few
...Which suggests - hopefully - how quote dropping is mostly a leisurely activity, given its non exhaustive intrinsic nature.
--
Edit: related (with the first branch):
> He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future
Put the three together ("treasure", "battlefield", "owning"), the whole idea gets a sinister tone; take "treasure" alone, it may even raise "awww"s - without substance.
if the answer is no... there you go.
What do you mean by " it reads like something /pol/ or reddit would write "? Does Kaczynsky use tired cartoon memes? Does he accuse the left of insufficient weightlifting? Does he challenge them to a 1v1 in a Nintendo fighting game?
What part of his criticism do you actually find wrong?
Could it be that on the left there are more endurance sports, for health. And on the right there are more muscle building sports, so they can strike cool poses with their guns?
I disagree with a lot of Kaczynski's ideas and methods, but I still regard him as an important thinker and wish people would read his output in full rather than rushing to have the hottest take (not meant as a dig at you, rather the avalanche of attempted zingers on Twitter and in the media over the weekend).
It's definitely not the standard fare you would find on those 2 sites you mentioned just a brief 'don't trust these activists they want the philosopher stone for themselves'.
(set aside that it often builds up to violent inner conflicts)
they really don't, and this is one of the reasons why there is so much fracturing in the left, usually.
TK was post-left before it was cool.