News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the ... by theelous3 on Monday July 06, 2020 @06:42AM (#23746450)
I mean, I and anyone I've ever spoken to about it, along with what I see as the the general consensus, thinks it's pretty clear that his point was "technology bad".

Why do you say he in fact didn't have a point?

For example, ctrl+f "technology"

> The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict [...etc]

Re:“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the ... by dangerface on Monday July 06, 2020 @06:52AM (#23746501)
Because "technology bad" isn't a point it's a statement like 5g makes my dick bigger, there is no reason or logic behind it.

People can do bad things witch technology and we NEED to talk about it and consider the reasoning and logic of that technology as this article does, but this isn't the unibombers point of view he was just "Technology bad"

The article makes good points and talks about ideas which have been talked about by intelectuals like noam chompsky for years. The problem is it then attributes these ideas to a fruit cake whos only contribution to the world was "tecnology bad you blow up now"

Re:“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the ... by theelous3 on Monday July 06, 2020 @08:27AM (#23747153)
> isn't a point it's a statement

You can apply this logic to everything that's ever been said or written. It's a nonsense thing to say.

Re:“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the ... by dangerface on Monday July 06, 2020 @12:48PM (#23749737)
Questions aren't statements, you can write lots of things that aren't statements. What are you on about?
Re:“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the ... by theelous3 on Tuesday July 07, 2020 @01:48PM (#23761938)
I mean, questions are often statements, but way to try and find a semantic exit from the conversation.