Comment on The unAbomber. Otherwise, I agree.
MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world 22 hours agothere are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.
Seems like a great reason to discuss Ted’s viewpoints. We should definitely discuss the ineffectual extremists. Compare and contrast. Weigh and measure. That’s what truth-seekers do.
Telling people not to read a particular author borders on censorship. Asking people to expand their reading list and providing actual recommendations - that is wonderful and commendable. Thank you for that!
Comrade_Spood@quokk.au 21 hours ago
I never said don’t read it, but comparing and contrasting is not what is happening. Its like when Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto or whatever was making the rounds and everyone was like “ya know he makes some good points.” Everyone just keeps parroting the points of far-right extremists cause they pointed out a pretty universal issue like imperialism, consumerism, environmental destruction, etc. If the only perspective that gets spread is that of a far-right nutjob, then it normalizes the problematic parts of their perspective. Its always just begins and ends with “the unabomber made some good points.” Not “the unabomber made some good points, but Bookchin is more practical and not a eco-fascist.”
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 hours ago
Was the unabomber far-right? He seemed to hate industry with a passion. That doesn’t sound very far-right…
I’m not saying he’s a role model that we should emulate, and I disagree with his methods. But that doesn’t mean we should reject his ideas. Stalin was a terrible statesman and a brutal dictator, but philosophically he had some points worth discussing.
Lumping people into this category of being “untouchable” is not only an ad-hominem, but it’s also damaging, because it prevents people from engaging with the material critically and in environments where there’s a diversity of perspectives. Now the only people who read Stalin are the radical edgelords who are disillusioned with western society and so take everything he says uncritically at face value. It wouldn’t have the same allure if we didn’t make it something in the “restricted section.”
It’s perfectly valid to say “Ted’s actions were wrong, but some of his ideas are worth considering.”