unless you can show with substantive research that there are some ideas that cannot be held by violent terrorists I don't see why that would color these particular ideas.
* Commitment to avoid causing physical or emotional harm to others.
* Absolute respect and preservation of all human lives, without exceptions.
* Unconditional rejection of violence under any circumstances.
* Belief that every human has the right to live, and recognition of the dignity, worth, and autonomy of every individual.
* Full acceptance of differing viewpoints, cultures, religions, and lifestyles.
* Consistent practice of understanding and sharing the feelings of others, and alleviating their suffering.
* Refraining from initiating force against others.
* Resolution of differences and conflict through conversation and mutual understanding, rather than force or coercion.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZWvGhhFJ7dY/belief-in-...
The substantive research is all of human psychology, biology, and sociology.
Those things endowed with the capability of effortful judgement, abstracting from more "primitive" (biologically ancestral) instances.
See, the unabomber manifesto was essentially a moral argument. "These things cause damage" is a moral observation. (Because how are you going to define "damage" without moral judgment?) "Therefore we should destroy technology" is a moral judgment (because you can't get there without the moral judgment of "humans should not be damaged").
So, the point is, I'm not going to trust the moral judgment of a murderer. Every fact he says in the manifesto may be correct. But his moral judgment is self-evidently terrible. And he reaches his conclusions through that moral judgment.
The only thing that distinguishes Kaczynsky from, well, any random dude, are the bombs. Otherwise he is a no one. And random dude that did not send bombs makes more sense to listen to.