>>24233564
You didn't receive an argument because you didn't put forth any argument worth refuting. You started with
>i've never read ted
Then went on to imply the only relevant source you have is having "talked to people who have," before putting on your size XXXL reddit moderator shirt to perform armchair analysis on why others don't understand what technology is.

Here you drop the lowest IQ take in the entire thread, and it really casts doubt on whether your "serious" books are anything but Star Wars slop:
>the solution to "the technological crises" or whatever is being a good person, family member, and helping people form good habits that keep them in touch with reality and in control of technology, not hiding in the woods like a faggot, gotta have kids
Let's demonstrate how little you know on the topic:
>not hiding in the woods like a faggot, gotta have kids
>200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries’ ONLY goal.
>204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. ... (Both ISAIF)

>and helping people form good habits that keep them in touch with reality and in control of technology
This specific phrase is what caused >>24232269 to laugh at you. This is because the nature of technology as the predominant force over human society as opposed to human will itself has been the subject of commentary since at least 1863:
>Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question. (Butler)
And it is not a matter of personal choice. Your assumption is that the problem with tech (in the mind of Kaczynski) is that we waste our time on our phones, or lose independence from technology; This is simply not the case, and the same point is exponded upon by philosophers from Heidegger to Ellul. The problem is in the complex system itself, not in how the individual directly engages with the parts of it.
>attitude where you view yourself as rootless
Also a demonstration of your lack of understanding, and it's just your armchair psychologizing with no basis in reality. If you think being independent of societal constraints was Kaczynski's or any anti-tech thinkers concern, then you have veered into the realm of genuine developmental disability.

What specific point would you want to make, and what would you like to see refuted (if it could be refuted in your opinion)?

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Uncle Ted's problem was really that he was an Amerimutt raised to believe that individuality, freedom, and personal autonomy were the natural…