
Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000) - HoppedUpMenace
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/?single_page=true
======
justboxing
> The "Bad" Parts of Technology Cannot Be Separated from the "Good" Parts. [1]

I thought this was one of the most prophetic statement from his Technology
Manifesto. Written in 1995, still true today. Take any technology, and you'll
see it has been used for doing "good" things as well as "evil" things, and
it's impossible for anyone to separate the two and enforce usage of only the
"good" parts. Example: Drones. Used in many countries now to send recon to
remote areas for rescue missions [2], drop food or medicinal supplies in
conflict zones. Same drones also used by the same countries to remotely kill
"suspected terrorists" and by ISIS Jihadis (in Iraq) to drop bombs on Iraqi
soldiers [3].

You cannot invent drones and tell people it should only be used for good
things, not bad things. Same with Facebook. Used to organize events, connect
with family, find missing people, start revolutions and protests. Same
Facebook also used to spread fake news, lure unsuspecting victims for robbery
and even murder, recruit Jihadis.

Every time a new technology is invented, human find a way to use it in a bad,
destructive way.

Too bad blogging and Podcasting or youtube weren't around when Ted Kaczynski's
wrote his technology manifesto, cos maybe then he may have resorted to online
medium to spread his message, instead of killing people to get attention for
his manifesto.

[1] Source: The Unabomber Trial: The Manifesto =>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabo...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm)

[2] Source: Drones Help Rescue Missing Hikers =>
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1VPZ5jt5Xw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1VPZ5jt5Xw)

[3] Source: Footage of ISIS drone dropping grenade bombs on Iraqi soldiers =>
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uw0KWhYAoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uw0KWhYAoY)

~~~
Iv
> You cannot invent drones and tell people it should only be used for good
> things, not bad things.

Sure you can. This is the purpose of laws and law enforcement. Try to fly a
drone with a knife to stab people and people will destroy it and arrest you.

Internationally we have a lack of laws and a lack of enforcement, therefore we
had only limited success at preventing nuclear proliferation or chemical/bio
weapons uses but the will is there and successes do exist.

Both Antarctica and outer space are military-weapons-free (they do have a
valid excuse for that handgun on the ISS)

~~~
hammock
Laws don't separate good from evil. They serve to legitimize (think of the
root of that word) the exercise of certain behavior. But there can be good
laws and evil laws. If you have trouble understanding this point, look at
another country besides the US when thinking about it.

~~~
kutkloon7
Heh, "Look at the laws in the US when thinking about it" would be more
appropriate.

~~~
sammoorhouse
> If you have trouble understanding this point, look at another country
> besides the US when thinking about it.

More than a little patronising, and also: really??

~~~
hammock
It wasn't a dig at the US, rather the opposite. Looking at say North Korea, or
Nazi Germany, or any place where slavery was legal...might make it easier to
see laws that were divorced from what is good/bad.

------
altotrees
His story is tragic. Tragic in that he was seemingly so smart even he couldn't
handle it. Tragic in that people lost their lives. Tragic in the fact that we
lost a mind like his and the advancements he could've brought to mathematics
potentially. Sad in that he was so impacted by MK ultra. It's a truly
terrible, yet captivating story.

His neo-Luddism has always been of interest to me also, as one of my classes
read his essays in college. They just seem so uneven, like they are trying to
grasp at a logical idea but fall short. Yeah, interesting and really sad.

~~~
tlb
The article paraphrases Ellul criticizing the modern world, "mankind no longer
saw technology as merely a tool but now pursued its advancement as an end in
itself. Society served technology, not vice versa. Individuals were valued
only insofar as they served this end." That was a major influence on
Kaczynski.

When you say it's tragic that he didn't end up contributing to mathematics,
you're judging his life by the values he revolted against.

I believe that advancing technology (and knowledge in general) is among the
highest callings a person can have, so I agree with you. But he wouldn't.

~~~
FooHentai
He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!

What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, it is the
people, it is the people!

The advancement of technology and furthering of knowledge _is_ a noble
endeavor, but only in pursuit of a higher goal. Advanced technology not used,
or great knowledge never applied, is of no value. It is only with a higher
intention for the use of these things that they have any value at all. That
higher purpose could be a number of things - The betterment of mankind, of all
forms of life, of society. But something greater than the self and certainly
greater than no purpose at all.

Of course, it's not possible to specifically link advancements in technology
and knowledge with specific goals before the advancements are made.

What I'm curious about is: Do you view what I've said above as agreeing with
your belief, or closer to the view of Jaques Ellul?

~~~
tlb
If you think that overall, knowledge improve people's lives, then you can take
either position and act the same way. If you think that knowledge overall
hurts people, then you have to decide (and you should probably go with the
people.)

------
Geekette
_" Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy?"_

I've always marveled at people's insistence on not believing that others can
cultivate and act on bad/evil impulses without necessarily being insane. That
insistence also pushes a simplistic view of mental illness: suffering from any
of the numerous conditions that fall under it doesn't automatically equate to
loss of awareness of self/propriety, societal mores, etc. And even in acute
cases involving reduced consciousness/self-awareness, it doesn't mean that it
occurs 24-7 or crucially, during the planning and execution of a crime.

I was also struck by the noted increase in certain types of “single-issue”
terrorism:

 _" Last year the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, told Congress, “The most
recognizable single issue terrorists at the present time are those involved in
the violent animal rights, anti-abortion, and environmental protection
movements. … the potential for destruction has increased as terrorists have
turned toward large improvised explosive devices to inflict maximum damage.”_

~~~
wu-ikkyu
Labeling an adversary as "insane" or "crazy" is a convenient and commonly used
way to shut down any discussion or inquiry into the grievances of that person,
lest they reveal an underlying problem which we don't want to address.

~~~
EternalData
"Crazy" is unaddressable. It's a solution that answers any questions that
might arise, including questions we might ask of ourselves.

The interesting split is to see when something is called "ideologically"
driven versus something merely painted as the act of a "crazed" person.

~~~
Geekette
_The interesting split is to see when something is called "ideologically"
driven versus something merely painted as the act of a "crazed" person._

Indeed. It's interesting to see how people's framing of a topic sometimes
communicates more than an answer to direct questioning could. This calls to
mind another split where wealth is the cushion: When the poor are deemed crazy
but the rich merely eccentric for perpetuating similar, negatively perceived
actions.

------
j9461701
The article reminded me of the two cultures lecture by CP Snow, from 1959.
Where Snow argued Western intellectual culture was sharply divided between the
humanities and the sciences, and great harm was being done by each trying to
poison and undermine the other to claim greater cultural cachet.

I wonder if this played some role in Kaczynski's strange tragedy. As the
article describes, he seemed to have adopted parts of each approach -the moral
nihilism and dualism of the sciences, coupled with the anti-technology and
anti-empiricism of the humanities. Almost as if he absorbed only those things
each camp said to damage the other as true. Of course he ultimately did end up
murdering scientists and engineers, so it's clear which side his sympathies
fell toward in the end.

~~~
smallnamespace
As an immigrant (from a non-Western society) who also spent youth steeped in
Western literature, arts, and music, every development after WWI just seems so
sad.

There's the moral self-loathing (veering towards self-flagellation) of the
'social justice' class, the academic anti-truth of the relativists and the
post-modernists, the equally poisonous know-nothingism of parts of the right.

Western civilization still lives in the long shadow cast by Europe tearing
itself apart not just once, but twice in the span of a generation.

~~~
tomcam
Give me an example of no-nothingism on the right.

~~~
smallnamespace
Well, I do think that honest people can disagree in good faith over
complicated topics, like how to run the economy, or how much of a problem
global warming is, or what to do about illegal immigration.

So how about some simple, unambiguous fact that should submit to easy
verification?

As of late last year, about 42% of Republicans polled disagreed with the
assertion that Obama was born in the US, while only 27% of Republicans agreed
[1]. Plus the fact that our current sitting president was instrumental in
formulating and then popularizing this lie.

I submit this to you as a good example of 'know-nothingism' \-- if there's
some piece of information that challenges your world view, then you will do
your damned best to know nothing about it.

[1] [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-
persiste...](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-
partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446)

~~~
tomcam
Ouch. That is an excellent example.

------
Chiba-City
Wittgenstein gave away his fortune. He left academia and taught kids math.
Never equate trinket lusts and synthetics peddlers with sciences. Kaczynski
was specifically a young victim of wholly inferior bad men playing with
superior men who should be named, denigrated and brutally punished if still
breathing. Tit-for-tat for children of bad men is counseled by Harvard game
theorists like Thomas Schelling. These are misadventures and not always good
jobs at good wages.

~~~
dzdt
This comment hints at either interesting thoughts or craziness, but is about
four times too short for me to tell which.

------
jmull
Very interesting article.

But I think it's a mistake to believe the ideas he was exposed to as an
undergraduate lead to him becoming the unabomber.

In his manifesto he works through a lot of these ideas and shows us the world
view he's developed around them, but the impetus for it all -- it seems clear
to me -- comes from his inability to come to terms with living in a society.

It causes him great pain and distress and he's been unable to find a way to
make it stop. He's finally decided that society needs to go, and violently.
And he's come up with a meticulously constructed world view to support this...
(1) that this is somehow OK and (2) that it's possible.

While it looks like he clearly used ideas from his Harvard days to create his
world view, the motivation existed independent of them. I think he was simply
using the materials at hand and would have used other ideas had he not been
exposed to the the "Gen Ed" ones... a world view different in details but
supporting the same conclusion.

It does seem reasonable to wonder whether severe psychological experiments
might have pushed a mind on the edge over a precipice, though.

~~~
armitron
Rather than dismissing him in such a crude manner, why don't you take the time
to read and comprehend what he has written - and, assuming you find any - try
to point out the flaws in his reasoning.

Kaczynski was a genius, among other things, and his views deserve better than
armchair dismissal and handwaving.

~~~
flexie
Why would anyone try to understand the ramblings of a twisted person who
murdered 3 and maimed many more?

~~~
damnfine
You judge the material not the source.

~~~
TorKlingberg
There is lots of writing out there, more than you could ever read. You would
never have heard of Kaczynski if not for his murders, so if you read his
writing it is only because of his murders. Should you?

------
pizza
I am in a double-bind. On the one hand, I agree with some of his ideas about
society's unspoken capacity for alienation.

On the other hand, were his actions + manifesto not the pinnacle of cultural
junk food? Practically _designed_ for mass-consumption, and hence complicit in
consumption's deleterious effect upon humanity itself - \- because of how he
knew it would receive attention? He deliberately chose to express himself in a
way so as to attract the attention of the various distant story-tellers
(essayists and journalists and news anchors, etc..) he knew would be drawn to
his story like moths to flames. How is it more prophetic than O.J. Simpson's
highway chase in The White Bronco, _even if academia 's chorus say "This is a
message that actually is addressed to us!"_, and _even if O.J. 's event was
spontaneous, but the Unabomber's was premeditated_..?

To be honest, mine isn't a totally original idea. I got it from watching a
tiny video yesterday about Adorno, on pop music --
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7Fhaji8ow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7Fhaji8ow)

~~~
armitron
His ideas stand on their own and should not be polluted by armchair
psychoanalysis or worse, immediate dismissal by people who are too lazy [or
too stupid] to read and comprehend what Kaczynski has written.

It should be obvious to any educated technologist that reads even a few pages
of Kaczynski's output that Kaczynski is a genius. His writings are not the
ramblings of a schizophrenic but should be analyzed and discussed without the
popular preconceptions that can only serve to cloud one's critical thinking.

~~~
pizza
It seems you think we disagree? We are both in agreement. (and, yes, the
article asserts that attacks against Kaczynski's credibility arose from
hypocritical or idiotic critics having to simultaneously merit his ideas and
defend orthodoxy, leading to well-poisoning attacks). I think attempts to
discount him as schizophrenic are bullshit, that the paranoia he experienced
was clearly rational because it was obvious that he would put himself into the
crosshairs of law enforcement/a huge adversary, and that to evaporate his
responsibility because of hearsay diagnoses would be like a priest condemning
an atheist as an evil witch to be burned at the stake for the reason that
there would be no reason for anyone who understood the consequences of
religion to willingly put themselves into such a compromised position.. if
that makes sense.

But, to him, his actions must have been his magnum opus, his number 1 feat,
not the manifesto. If he had believed his manifesto primarily would have made
his intended impact on society, then why would he have needed to architect his
campaign before its release? I can believe he prized his behavior over his
manifesto AND also believe that the manifesto has more gravity than, and will
outlast in public memory, his deeds. I admit the possibility that he realized
he needed notoriety or a skin-in-the-game (I'm not a Taleb fanboy I swear)
reputation so as to be worth being noticed..

but it all gets fed back into the spectacle at large, which is what he
detested. His plot to _weaken_ technological society's tight grasp on the
direction of humanity's potential .. had the effect of _fortifying_ all of the
same levers of control: a state of emergency leads to boosting ordinary
controls to desperate, extraordinary levels, like an immune response.

And from my armchair it's easy to say this, but an _autoimmune_ response
(where social technological controls would eat away at the survival of those
controls themselves) wouldn't have backfired for his plan.. But present-day
technology/'the techne' hardly finds itself in situations where it mistakenly
combats its own self-maintenance, so it might not really be a possibility..
(yet?)

------
dumbneurologist
this section:

    
    
      its research committee approved my request to view the 
      records of this experiment, the so-called data set, which 
      referred to subjects by code names only. But because 
      kaczynski’s alias was by then known to some journalists, I 
      was not permitted to view his records.
    

is straight-up B.S.. the only (putative) purpose of withholding records is to
protect confidentiality. but in this case, the journalist was researching with
Kaczynski's consent. they might have been playing games with the author
(alston chase) and omitted this detail so that he didn't come back with the
signed slip of paper, but any of the subject's data should absolutely be
available to the subject.

I say "putative" because the _real_ purpose seems apparent... to hide from an
investigation.

------
gxs
I don't mean to preach, but that is a damn good article, don't just read the
comments, read it.

So many nuggets, particularly around the maturation process that is mentioned
in college where one goes from having a "dualistic" perspective to learning
that the world's environment is relative, what happens to to people who reject
that view, etc.

------
gerbilly
Some people put too much faith in reason.

When I read his manifesto it felt to me like it was logically airtight. If you
agree with his premises, I think it's difficult to reject his conclusions
using reason.

But of course we have much more than reason to rely on when making decisions,
and it's easy to reject his conclusions if you use your whole mind, some might
say your heart.

I think it's tragic that people, both individually and at the social level,
are so good at reasoning ourselves into situations that we just can't live
with.

~~~
milcron

        G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what
        does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad … mathematicians go mad.”

------
mithunmanohar1
[http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-
air/2017/08/22/545168709/f...](http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-
air/2017/08/22/545168709/fbi-profiler-says-linguistic-work-was-pivotal-in-
capture-of-unabomber) Here is a podcast with FBI agent who played a pivotal
role in solving this case.

~~~
Steko
The profiling is interesting but in this case, the FBI was irrelevant to
'solving the case', Kaczynski's brother and sister-in-law saw the manifesto in
the NYT and turned him in.

~~~
cabinguy
The FBI made the call to publish the manifesto, hoping for this exact outcome.

~~~
Steko
I stand half corrected, they did encourage publishing along with DoJ and it
was the papers which ultimately made the call.

------
dahoramanodoceu
I strongly recommend technologists read the work of Fredy Perlman. It is
essential that the builders start thinking about social consequences of their
creations.

[http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-
against...](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-
story-against-leviathan)

------
megraf
Another article made the rounds on Reddit a while back and it motivated me to
write to Ted (the Unibomber). I explained that I was a software engineer and
found some algorithms intrinsically interesting (Sieve of Eratosthenes, etc.).
It's too bad I never heard back from him.

------
solidsnack9000
_" Speaking as a former college professor, I can say that most curricula have
absolutely no effect on most students."_

------
freeflight
A really interesting read and imho it's quite relevant to our current times.
This is the current political climate in a nutshell:

> Dualists in a relativistic environment tend to see themselves as surrounded;
> they become increasingly lonely and alienated. This attitude “requires an
> equally absolutistic rejection of any ‘establishment’” and “can call forth
> in its defense hate, projection, and denial of all distinctions but one,”
> Perry wrote. “The tendency … is toward paranoia.”

Reading parts of the manifesto, rambling on about
"leftists/collectivists/socialists", also reminded me about rather recent
"alt-right" arguments. I guess we humans just prefer our realities to be
neatly dualistic or else we might be wasting too much energy actually
"thinking" about stuff, what a hassle that would be!

~~~
dmix
Do you have a links to alt right writings and thought leaders that push
forward this view?

I hear endlessly about this alt right ideology from the left but I can't seem
to find a single person other than a few clearly fringe white nationalists who
use this label.

I try to follow both left and right, anarchist and libertarian groups, on
Twitter and elsewhere quite closely and I've been struggling to connect the
breathless warnings of the rise of these groups with any actual data/numbers
or any prominent leaders to measure the tangible growth and efficacy of their
messaging.

In terms of rejection of establishment this can equally be found on the
fringes of the left as well. Not to mention 'paranoia' and 'feelings of being
surrounded' when I frequently read about the rise of 'Nazis' and fascism which
again seems to be limited to a fringe at most, unless one takes seriously the
extremely broad group of people who are now given these labels.

If anything this election has merely amplified political tribalism fuelled by
fantasical images of armies of caricatures of their opponents. The reality
seems much more boring and less scary. Especially when one tangibly measures
how ineffective any of Trumps more extreme policies have been at becoming
reality.

Even though Trump won he was still fringe and ridiculed within his own party
endlessly, which they were quick to forget out of political expediency. The
fact these same people chose him over Hillary in some key rust belt states
also doesn't lead me to believe his more extreme views are as popular and
widespread as we're lead to believe. If anything it seems like his primary
offering was emotional gratification about 'winning' over the other tribe.

Therefore I'm extremely wary to buy into these narratives generalizing the
'other' tribes views.

~~~
fusiongyro
It doesn't seem to you like the right is increasingly reliant on shadowy
conspiracies to explain events? I haven't heard the phrase "false flag
operation" come up except from my infowars friends. A Republican chairman from
my state said the violence in Charlottesville was caused by "evil Soros
money," which seems to imply a conspiracy to me. Doesn't the whole "fake news"
thing strike you as an attempt on the part of the right to brand the entire
media a conspiracy, if not journalism itself?

~~~
dmix
Soros is merely the rights version of how the Koch brothers are behind
everything to the left. Sorry I'm struggling to take this as anything new or
special with the right in the Fox news/CNN world of US politics.

But as I said we're in a new era of extreme political tribalism.

What disappointments me is that so many smart people on the left think they
are engaging in 'resistance' when they are largely just fueling further
tribalism by going deeper down their sides rabbit hole - instead of engaging
in rational discourse, focusing on party output instead of tribal wins, and
rejecting FUD. I hold the right to a lower standard as I believe most of them
are doing it for emotional gratification of trolling the left rather than
pursuing some righteous politicial objective, but that still largely creates
the same results.

~~~
fusiongyro
That's a fair point about the Koch brothers. I can't disagree with what you're
saying here.

~~~
mrguyorama
I can. I've never seen people claim that the Koch brothers pay actors to run
over counter-protestors

------
bronz
ive read a little about this before so i havent bothered to read the article.
but as i understand it, ted was cross-examined by someone at harvard as a part
of the mk ultra program. and as i understand it, this cross examination was
not aided with any kind of drug -- it was a simple verbal exchange. i think a
lot of people assume that ted was already crazy, and that is unfortunate
because that point of view overlooks the fascinating observation that a
persons mind can be broken with nothing but words. i really do find it
fascinating. if you pay attention, you will notice that there are many clues
floating around. high intelligence has an anecdotal connection with being
sensitive or prickly. the flight or fight response is activated when presented
with ideas that counter yours, politically. and, there are other events that
cause similar symptoms to ted, like a bad breakup. overall, everything points
to this vague concept of "identity crisis." i think we have all experienced
that feeling at least once. but what is an identity crisis really? it seems to
be triggered when our core concepts and ideas about who we are contradict each
other. and when its triggered, it can have very serious consequences. so does
this mean that someone is justified in keeping their core ideas and principles
private? does it mean those things shouldnt be discussed? it is interesting to
note that ted could have gone through the examination without any ill effect
by simply refusing to disclose things too close to his "core." and there is
another interesting concept: the idea of purposefully restructuring ones
framework of the mind in order to prevent an identity crisis and similar
things. for example, instead of trying to create a logical reason for doing
certain things, either during rumination or during cross examination, one
could simply say that "i did it because i felt like it." or "because i wanted
to." this avoids a cross examiner from pointing out two actions one has taken
whose proclaimed motivations contradict each other. "because i felt like it"
cannot be contradicted. i think that there are probably a lot of things one
might do like this to "harden" ones mind.

i think that intelligent people are often more vulnerable to cross examination
because they ruminate more often and deeply than other people, and during
their ruminations they give structure and motivation to their actions and
ideas. once that structure is proven wrong or that multiple parts contradict
each other, an intelligent person is unable to ignore it. this causes the
brains machinery to grind and in some way stop working correctly. that is what
really fascinates me, that an identity crisis is not a conscious thing but the
literal gears of the mind grinding against each other. an identity crisis is a
manifestation of something low level going wrong in the brain, in my opinion.
i wonder if there are drugs or therapies that might stop the gears from
grinding.

------
WillyOnWheels
Not sure what the point of all this is. Thousands of very smart, accomplished
men and women have gone through GenEd at Harvard without murdering multiple
people.

Personally I think Kaczynski was influenced more by his inability to get a
date in his entire life.

~~~
tray5
>Personally I think Kaczynski was influenced more by his inability to get a
date in his entire life.

You should read his manifesto, the dude had some funky ideas about society and
there's no excuse for murdering innocent poeple, but he does defend what he
believes in very vigorously. He wasn't a man without an ideological backing.

~~~
pvg
That's pretty much "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism,
Dude, at least it's an ethos." Lots of mentally ill people defend what they
believe in very vigorously.

~~~
tray5
Not what I'm saying, I'm saying it is well thought out and has reasoned
arguments. Not just that he believes in it a lot.

~~~
pvg
Really? You're one of few people who think that. The 'manifesto' hits the
crazy right off the bat and sticks to it for 35k words.

"One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is
leftism [...] When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly
socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and
disability activists, animal rights activists and the like [...] Thus, what we
mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

[...] By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in
the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem,
feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-
hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings
(possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in
determining the direction of modern leftism."

You can get stuff of this quality by the shovelful from your typical bad
subreddit, although usually not by one person all at once.

~~~
titzer
> We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more
> or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the
> direction of modern leftism.

So he made a (controversial) argument about leftists which actually fits in
with his broader point that humans these days are not able to self actualize
and therefore suffer from repressed feelings. IMO the statement he made is
significantly less crazy than Freud's "scientific" theory of penis envy
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy#Freud.27s_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy#Freud.27s_theory)),
which was treated as an actual theory by the scientific community for
_decades_.

It's a bit polemic about leftists in that regard, but do you think the overall
point is invalid? If so, maybe argue why instead of just calling him crazy.

~~~
pvg
I think you are conflating 'has some sort of internal logic' with 'sane'. Of
course you can dig around the thing and find some idea that appeals or
convince yourself of its structural soundness. But many of the premises are
still nuts and the quality and style of writing poor, to put it rather
charitably. He starts by pinning the source of world 'craziness' on
'leftists', a broad category that appears to include 'animal activists' and
people who find words like 'chick' and 'negro' derogatory and with a helpful
forward reference to some 250 odd numbered paragraphs ahead. The whole thing
is, again, 35k words. Consider, for comparison, the following famous pieces of
political writing:

 _The Communist Manifesto_

Thomas Paine's _Common Sense_

Jonathan Swift's _A Modest Proposal_

Each of these is shorter than 35k words. In fact, they're shorter than 35k
words taken together.

~~~
titzer
> But many of the premises are still nuts and the quality and style of writing
> poor, to put it rather charitably.

See, this is the part of the dialog where if you simply point out which
premises are "nuts" and then argue simply and objectively about them, then
actual conversation happens (or is finished!).

Trying to shut down the whole thing down with the vague term "crazy"
(something so obviously self-evident to be in need of no justification) is
really a disservice to everyone.

I am not sure what point you are making with those other works. The Art of
Computer Programming is three (3!) volumes. Is Don Knuth a nut? Euclid's
Elements is also huge. Nuts?

