Not sure what the point of all this is. Thousands of very smart, accomplished men and women have gone through date-less lives without murdering multiple people.

Newton, Nietzsche, Beethoven, Tesla, etc

>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.

Lots of murderers leave behind manifestos. For some reason, Kaczynski's has always been well-regarded by the media. This is a testament to its sheer political banality, rather than any "funkiness". The guy was sayin' what all the newsmen were merely thinking. "Cool!"

Now, Elliot Rodgers had a funky manifesto.

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.

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.

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.

> 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), 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.

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.

> 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?

I am also one of the 'few' who thinks his manifesto is reasonable, maybe one reason is because even though I understand his critique may sound as hateful it is grounded on his perception of the underlying social issues that may hinder critical thought from groups of people that claim to be the ones protesting for the right causes.

When someone goes crazy they don't lose the ability to use sophisticated language. I feel like people are reading the words and respecting the sophistication yet ignoring the meaning. What is he actually saying? Nothing that makes sense, hence the crazy part.

> Nothing that makes sense, hence the crazy part.

Have you actually read the manifesto and tried to understand it instead of just dismissing it as "crazy"? The only way to distinguish nonsense from sense is to...try to make sense of it.

IMO the only crazy part of the manifesto is the explanation and defense of his violence. But given that that violence almost certainly _did_ lead to a wider proliferation of his manifesto and ideas, it's even hard to argue that that was not an entirely rational (if inhuman) strategy.

The date thing is quite a novel interpretation. Also only 22 people went through long psychological experiment he did and afaik they were all older.

It might be surprising, but women in fact don't have civilising effect on brutes nor cure mental disease nor change peoples with philosophies (which he possibly did not had). Plenty of violent people with girlfriend in history.

It's likely more in reference to "incels" and the manifesto of Elliot Rogers

I read the manifesto, but don't really see the reference? Elliot Rogers seemed to have trouble interpreting world around him, he was not ok up there. Unabimber is according to article different case.

The point is that he was expirimented on with procedures that could be called torture.