Talk:Ted Kaczynski

Rejecting leftism

Ted Kaczynksi, in his manifesto, clearly rejected both left and right. Mentioning his rejection of leftism only is a thinly veiled suggestion that he was right-leaning. This stinks of political bias editing and should be corrected or removed. 107.142.60.195 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

He spent the bulk of the manifesto denouncing leftism and that's what the article correctly says. "The right", "rightism" and "rightist" appear nowhere in the manifesto. "Conservative" appears in two paragraphs. In comparison to the number of references to the left, these are exceptions that prove a rule. More fundamentally, K used his political gripes to justify psychopathy that he exhibited (and acknowledged exhibiting) since he was a teenager, and what truly stinks is attaching any significance to them. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:DD:ECBB:5E2E:A476 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@2601:642:4600:D3B0:DD:ECBB:5E2E:A476 He also repeatedly stated in the same manifesto that when he says "Leftism" he's not referring to a political ideology or set of ideas but to a "psychological type", and he also repeatedly stated that simply holding left-wing beliefs (such as equal rights for women, ethnic and sexual minorities) does *not* automatically make someone a "Leftist" (at least according to his own definition). He even suggests that those whom he calls "Leftists" could actually be a minority of those who hold left-leaning beliefs.

As for the "Right" he never mentions it, but he openly states that authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany exploited what he calls "vicarious power process" to gain popular support (a thing which he clearly regarded as bad). In one article he stated that neo-Nazis are evil and violent but also very stupid, which according to him made them less dangerous than police officers.

On top of that, he openly identified as an Anarchist. These do not seem to me like statements from someone who supports the far-right: the fact that his ideas have been appropriated by ecofascists and white supremacists does not make him an ecofascist or a white supremacist.

Also, claiming that he was a "psychopath" should not prevent meaningful discussion of his ideas.

What you are pretty much saying is: "He always attacked the Left, never the Right, so he was right-leaning. But even if he wasn't, he was crazy so everything he said is bollocks". The former statement is just incorrect, the latter is higly debatable.

So yeah, I agree with 107.142.60.195 and say that only mentioning his rejection of leftism without providing context is a form of political bias. Some editors even went as far as suggesting that he was not an anarchist despite the fact that he endorsed Anarchism in the manifesto. 109.54.3.208 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem very odd to phrase it like that. I even checked the article in a couple of different languages to make sure that this was an anomaly. I believe "rejecting industrialism" would be a better fit, and that is the way it's described in at least two other versions of the text. 2804:D57:5520:5200:77E2:A972:52B4:6DC4 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sixteen or seventeen?

The section Bombings contains this sentence:

"Sixteen bombs were attributed to Kaczynski."

But the table in that section describes seventeen bombs (two of which were defused and so did not detonate).

I hope someone familiar with this subject can fix this discrepancy.

A good faith critique of an ominous label

Seems theres been actual discussion even since back then of Kaczynskism or any traits derived from Kaczynski to be in uniform opinion of his disdain for traits of leftism and other anarcho-environmentalists and how Nietsczchean it was (and still is).

But after countless readings and much consideration alot of it are pretty overblown overanalysis of a one part of his thoughts that critique leftists revolutionarism, its not even a main goal of his supposed environmental crusade nor is it main part of his manifesto, just one of many, so seeing it as rejecting leftism as his main labels for him is quite unfair and probably contributes to his whole persona that allures the wrong people and misjudge it. I dont know who put that label recently but i don't remember it there before, but in case any of you editors consensus thinks the label is correct its fine by me, but its a genuine critique on my part. Benfor445 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on link to David Skrbina

The link to philosophy professor David Skrbina appears to be incorrect in the sentence: University of Michigan–Dearborn philosophy professor David Skrbina wrote the introduction to Kaczynski's 2010 anthology Technological Slavery, which includes the original manifesto, letters from Kaczynski to Skrbina, and other essays.

Rather than link to the page about David Skrbina, it links to this unrelated article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_gubernatorial_election#Green_Party

This seems to be more of an issue with David Skrbina's page (or rather lack thereof) than with Ted Kaczynski, but I thought it was still valuable to note here. Contone (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Contone (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Link removed; the target article has the name as a redirect because Skrbina was a Green Party running mate in the election, but I think including the link there ran afoul of WP:SURPRISE. AviationFreak💬 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Contone (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)