It’s basically selling your data to a cunt. Only works if you live in a swing state and have a “referer” whom you can sell their data too.

He claims he’ll check but you could probably get away with a real address but fake names.

Are those images the same scale?

Out of the three major blocks. The allies (not counting the Soviets) were by far the most humane. Even though they did quite some fucked up shit. It was nowhere near the scale of the Axis and the Soviet.

Lets not forget the soviets literally started the war with a Nazi alliance and invaded Poland and Finland for territory. They also committed great atrocities towards the polish population.

However. The allies were still coloinial powers who bombed civilians as a war tactic. They were far from “heavenly”.

Healthline is a shit tier source to be fair. Even wikipedia says it is a terrible source. They put it in the same category as the daily mail.

I’m getting high school law class flashbacks with a little corruption sprinkled in.

Science journalism try to be accurate and non-clickbait mission impossible

Nope. Just as illegal as Israel’s.

Doesn’t google literally have a deal with reddit. Whatever their algorithm is, you can tell they prioritise reddit results because reddit shows up #1-#3 on pretty much any query in a question format.

Mostly FB wasn’t a trove of far right shit and it was before a lot of the scandals pointing out to what extent our data is sold.

That’s a tiny fine. That should be fireable.

deleted by creator

And I, Oil Executive, say it is an imperative climate change does not destroy nature.

searxng? Anyone?

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.

Lmao this is me. (the guy)

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 would appreciate if you were to back up your claim with a concrete quote from his writings though.

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.

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.

I’ve read most of his collections of letters and books and they are decent. I don’t like the ways he critiques leftism (but hey I’m a leftist so that’s to be expected). Apart from that, he has some interesting theories.

Also the cancer suicide makes more sense when you realise his father did the exact same thing.