I wonder how many of the people down voting you realize Ted Kaczynski is the unabomber? (I couldn't read the article since it's blocked by work firewall, so I can't comment on it).

Is the implication that people knowing that would be more or less likely to downvote?

I mean, Kaczynski was certainly not writing calm and evidence-based prose, but he's regularly cited as saying something seminal and interesting regardless. I don't think "there's no evidence, that's pure propaganda" is untrue, but it feels like a strange objection to raise for anyone aware of what the work is.

Aren't manifestos usually meant to be a position statement or propaganda, with factual debate conducted elsewhere? It's like criticizing an instruction manual for lacking compelling characters, or a holy book for not being peer-reviewed.

Probably less likely to downvote. Kaczysnki is obviously intelligent, and from what I remember of his manifesto from the last time I read it he makes some reasonable points, but I don't think his interpretation of the world is a good one. It obviously prevented him from integrating himself productively into society. You can choose to believe the things Kaczyski believes, but I don't think it gets you anything worthwhile, or you can choose to believe other things that still recognize some of the tragedies that go on in our society but allow you to engage with them in a more productive and meaningful way.

I criticize Kaczynski's philosophy because it drove him to try to kill people (and he succeeded at least once). I don't care how "seminal" and "interesting" it is. To me, his philosophy is condemned by where it led him.

(Yes, I realize that a different person could have raised the same ideas without using a bombing campaign to try to publicize them...)

Judge the content not the man.

I cannot totally separate the content from the man, nor from the actions of the man.