He definitely had some problematic opinions. Namely he thought that modern feminist and gay rights type movements were distracting from bigger problems. Though he did actually get that ideological idea from Marx who theorised that the owner class distracts the worker class with disputes over social rights of marginalised peoples to distract from the bigger problem in society (which marx viewed as the owner classes monopoly on ownership of means of production, while Kaczynski viewed it as techno-industrial society which removes people far from their natural behaviour (self reliance and sustenance) and destroys the nature which makes it possible.)
Not sure that qualifies him as a “full on reactionary” though. And I’m not sure I agree with your dismissal of his writings as “just mad things were changing”. They’re quite thorough and rigorous. He spent a couple decades writing multiple theoretical works to back up his views. We had an entire class on them at the masters level in social theory.
Really? We never covered that in my class? And I even read his later letters and stuff. Though I do remember reading a letter that apoligised to women and gay people because he thought he had had bigoted opinions towards them earlier in life, so that probably is what he’s referencing. Our professor must not have put that in the reading list. Good to know, thanks.
I read this shit years ago and I’m not really interesting in inflicting that on myself again. If you are interested I’m sure you can search up some feminist or queer critiques of his writings.
If you’re just doing the internet debate me thing well, good luck with that.
Well I did read the first search engine result for “ted kaczynski feminist critique” yesterday. And the first one I got was critiquing his critique of leftism and his stance that gender issues are used as a distraction, but it didn’t touch on what you said that he was against equal rights and a “full-on reactionary”.
Which goes in line with the writings I’d read about him. Perhaps I should dig deeper. I did find a couple social media posts calling him sexist/a bigot when I searched that up. And I do know there is an instance where he kind of stalked? I dunno what the right word for it is? but as a young man there is a story where he doesn’t enjoy getting rejected and spends time trying to “change her mind” which is a pretty big fuckup. He does give some “incel” vibes a little.
Also I’m not really trying the “debate me”. That isn’t my style. But you presented information that I had not known about even though I have extensive knowledge about the topic. And I spent a little while looking for more info yesterday and didn’t find much so it’s always appreciated if you can point to me something more specific. But of course I completely understand if you don’t feel like it.
Edit: The longest he talks about gender seems to be in his “sailing boat analogy” where he spends a couple pages writing a metaphor that basically says. “We spend a lot of time quarrelling about gender issues and such, but these issues are symptoms of deeper problems within our society, we should focus on fixing the deeper problems”.
Which I agree is kind of a problematic view, because as a marginalised person it’s only natural to fight for your rights. And being a white able-bodied man, I don’t think Kaczynski ever really understands that aspect.
I read a chunk of his work like 15 years ago because one of my stoner friends was into it. I recall seeing shit like “women are weaker than men” or “women are trying desperately to prove they’re not weaker than men, makes ya think dun it?” typical reactionary man shit, I recall various shit about queer people being vaguely disgusting to him, including some episode of visiting a gender clinic but ‘coming to his senses’ or similar disgusting crap.
I’m gonna guess you’re not a woman, and probably hetero white? people say things in certain ways and it indicates how they think about you. If you’re in a majority the remark “Oh I didn’t think someone like you would enjoy that” is almost certainly just innocent expression based on how someone has modelled you as an individual, if you’re not it’s very likely to be be someone excluding you as a class of person. you get sensitised to spotting shit like that in how people talk/how they behave and seeing the broader picture.
Keep in mind we’re talking about someone who bombed broadly random individuals. He was a sadistic, broken, piece of shit.
I’m a male who is not cis nor straight nor fully white nor able bodied. (If any of that matters). Though due to my disability I am unable to have social contact in real life. Which may explain a difference in social cues we are picking up.
I never said he was a good person or an idol. But was just curious what made you classify him as a “full-on reactionary” and say he was “just mad things were changing”. I’m not sure I’m convinced in using any of those two strong simplistic and firm assessments to classify such a complex character as his, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me your train of thought. Thank you.
He definitely had some problematic opinions. Namely he thought that modern feminist and gay rights type movements were distracting from bigger problems. Though he did actually get that ideological idea from Marx who theorised that the owner class distracts the worker class with disputes over social rights of marginalised peoples to distract from the bigger problem in society (which marx viewed as the owner classes monopoly on ownership of means of production, while Kaczynski viewed it as techno-industrial society which removes people far from their natural behaviour (self reliance and sustenance) and destroys the nature which makes it possible.)
Not sure that qualifies him as a “full on reactionary” though. And I’m not sure I agree with your dismissal of his writings as “just mad things were changing”. They’re quite thorough and rigorous. He spent a couple decades writing multiple theoretical works to back up his views. We had an entire class on them at the masters level in social theory.
Marx doesn’t come down against rights though, Ted did. He specifically wrote about how women should be subservient to men, it’s vile stuff.
Really? We never covered that in my class? And I even read his later letters and stuff. Though I do remember reading a letter that apoligised to women and gay people because he thought he had had bigoted opinions towards them earlier in life, so that probably is what he’s referencing. Our professor must not have put that in the reading list. Good to know, thanks.
Well it’s nice he changed his mind after having nothing to do but think about it for a while.
I would appreciate if you were to back up your claim with a concrete quote from his writings though.
I read this shit years ago and I’m not really interesting in inflicting that on myself again. If you are interested I’m sure you can search up some feminist or queer critiques of his writings.
If you’re just doing the internet debate me thing well, good luck with that.
Well I did read the first search engine result for “ted kaczynski feminist critique” yesterday. And the first one I got was critiquing his critique of leftism and his stance that gender issues are used as a distraction, but it didn’t touch on what you said that he was against equal rights and a “full-on reactionary”.
Which goes in line with the writings I’d read about him. Perhaps I should dig deeper. I did find a couple social media posts calling him sexist/a bigot when I searched that up. And I do know there is an instance where he kind of stalked? I dunno what the right word for it is? but as a young man there is a story where he doesn’t enjoy getting rejected and spends time trying to “change her mind” which is a pretty big fuckup. He does give some “incel” vibes a little.
Also I’m not really trying the “debate me”. That isn’t my style. But you presented information that I had not known about even though I have extensive knowledge about the topic. And I spent a little while looking for more info yesterday and didn’t find much so it’s always appreciated if you can point to me something more specific. But of course I completely understand if you don’t feel like it.
Edit: The longest he talks about gender seems to be in his “sailing boat analogy” where he spends a couple pages writing a metaphor that basically says. “We spend a lot of time quarrelling about gender issues and such, but these issues are symptoms of deeper problems within our society, we should focus on fixing the deeper problems”.
Which I agree is kind of a problematic view, because as a marginalised person it’s only natural to fight for your rights. And being a white able-bodied man, I don’t think Kaczynski ever really understands that aspect.
I read a chunk of his work like 15 years ago because one of my stoner friends was into it. I recall seeing shit like “women are weaker than men” or “women are trying desperately to prove they’re not weaker than men, makes ya think dun it?” typical reactionary man shit, I recall various shit about queer people being vaguely disgusting to him, including some episode of visiting a gender clinic but ‘coming to his senses’ or similar disgusting crap.
I’m gonna guess you’re not a woman, and probably hetero white? people say things in certain ways and it indicates how they think about you. If you’re in a majority the remark “Oh I didn’t think someone like you would enjoy that” is almost certainly just innocent expression based on how someone has modelled you as an individual, if you’re not it’s very likely to be be someone excluding you as a class of person. you get sensitised to spotting shit like that in how people talk/how they behave and seeing the broader picture.
Keep in mind we’re talking about someone who bombed broadly random individuals. He was a sadistic, broken, piece of shit.
I’m a male who is not cis nor straight nor fully white nor able bodied. (If any of that matters). Though due to my disability I am unable to have social contact in real life. Which may explain a difference in social cues we are picking up.
I never said he was a good person or an idol. But was just curious what made you classify him as a “full-on reactionary” and say he was “just mad things were changing”. I’m not sure I’m convinced in using any of those two strong simplistic and firm assessments to classify such a complex character as his, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me your train of thought. Thank you.