Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Russian contractors fight US coalition forces.

Well we are talking about military targets vs civilian targets.

I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that the rounding up and murder of six million civilian Jews by Japan's Axis partner wan't targeting the military.

The London air raids weren't focused on the military either.
 
I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that the rounding up and murder of six million civilian Jews by Japan's Axis partner wan't targeting the military.

The London air raids weren't focused on the military either.

Way to deflect, but we ain't talking about the Germans.


Didn't the unabomber have a PhD from the U of M?
 
This is about as cogent and transparently logical/rationale in its transitions and sequence as the Unabomber Manifesto.

It's been a while, but I remember the manifesto making a lot of sense, in parts at least. I don't remember it well enough to discuss transitions, but I remember being bothered by how much of it made sense to me.

The Unabomber was unhinged, but his manifesto, I think, was about shit that would go wrong if we kept relying on technology. Shit that we joke about the younger generations suffering from now.
 
Last edited:
Way to deflect, but we ain't talking about the Germans

Yes, YOU were talking about the Germans.

How does anything to do with the World War II Axis possibly not have anything to do with the Axis itself? (Japan and Germany-also Italy-in case you didn't know)
 
It's been a while, but I remember the manifesto making a lot of sense, in parts at least. I don't remember it well enough to discuss transitions, but I remember being bothered by how much of it made sense to me.

The Unabomber was unhinged, but his manifesto, I think, was about shit that would go wrong if we kept relying on technology. Shit that we joke about the younger generations suffering from now.

Okay.

I think I may get off this thread with all these haters of America and put on Casablanca.
 
It's been a while, but I remember the manifesto making a lot of sense, in parts at least. I don't remember it well enough to discuss transitions, but I remember being bothered by how much of it made sense to me.

The Unabomber was unhinged, but his manifesto, I think, was about shit that would go wrong if we kept relying on technology. Shit that we joke about the younger generations suffering from now.

What are you doing up so late? Are you cooking a special brew that needs to be brewed over the middle of the night?
 
Didn't the unabomber have a PhD from the U of M?

I have no idea what the manifesto was supposed to mean. Apparently Gulo does, but over the years Gulo has shown himself to be more perceptive than pretty much anyone I've ever known - both in person and in cyberspace.

My guess is that if Kazinski (sp?) had turned the manifesto in as an assignment at Michigan, he would have gotten a big fat F.
 
Theodore John Kaczynski, BA Mathematics Harvard University, MA, PhD Mathematics University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

had a lot of fucked up things happen to him over the course of his life. seems like any one of them would be merely a troubling memory, but you add them all together and could see how they could make a person mentally and socially isolated and paranoid.

also:
However, in 2006, he said his "memories of the University of Michigan are NOT pleasant ... the fact that I not only passed my courses (except one physics course) but got quite a few As, shows how wretchedly low the standards were at Michigan."​
ouch. Damn, Ted.
 
I don't give the government the credit for the technology. The government isn't all there is to America. Same for the philanthropy. That didn't come from the government. It did come from Americans. For all the bad, we excel at doing good. At least if you compare us to everyone else.

you need to separate "government" from "people."

I'd even be inclined to make a comment about Americans being culturally superior on account of "E pluribus unum"... assimilating the best of all the different cultures here and discarding the worst. you don't really see that anywhere else in the world to the extent you do here.

and our government was, more or less well designed. although ethnically cleansing the natives was pretty horrifying... and the whole slavery thing, along with the way the Federal government acquiesced to "accommodating" the South's "slavery under a different name" during Reconstruction - widespread prison labor, tenant farming, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws... also bad. If there was one thing we should've brutally cleansed from our national identity, it was the mentality of the Southern Aristocrat... sometimes celebrated as "leadership."

but then WWII, building the Pentagon, and creating a military industrial complex accountable to no one... basically made our ending - and possibly the end of humanity if we nuke it out - a fait accompli.

So right now, we're the worst by virtue of being the only country powerful enough not to need to be militant and brutal, yet willfully doing so. And there's no point in softening the blow by comparison to others.
 
...

also:
However, in 2006, he said his "memories of the University of Michigan are NOT pleasant ... the fact that I not only passed my courses (except one physics course) but got quite a few As, shows how wretchedly low the standards were at Michigan."​
ouch. Damn, Ted.

It looks like he got his PhD in '67.

two years before Bo got there and started kicking ass! had he been class of '70, surely he have included a rousing "Go Blue!" in his Manifesto.
 
America has its flawa that is for sure. We need to past this Trump debacle alive and hopefully we will. History when it is written about Trump will not be good .

Hitler kills 6 million plus and he gets Mentioned way more as top Mr. Evil then Stalin who killed 25+ million. I guess Hitler started the war so that is a bad notch to have but it's not like Stalin didn't gobble up Poland when he and Adolf were buddies.
 
I am a bit conflicted, since as I have posted before, have French Canadian and Ojibwa (Anishinaabeg) blood maternally, and Hessian (Alsace-Lorriane region) blood paternally. My ancestors have warred vs the US colonies/govmint in the mid-late 1700s (7 Years or French-Indian War, and the Revolutionary War). So should I still have a hatchet to grind, and flags to wave vs the Union (Yankees), like the South (Confederate descendants) do?
 
What are you doing up so late? Are you cooking a special brew that needs to be brewed over the middle of the night?

I've been up late a lot lately. Usually not online though. Got nothing in the fermenter, but I do have a beer in mind. There's a NEIPA getting very popular right now, sometimes also called a Juicy IPA.
 
you need to separate "government" from "people."

Sometimes. But I think America is the sum of it's parts, the fruits of it's works, and the influence of it's ideas and examples. I don't disagree with all the bad stuff people are throwing out there. But I also believe power corrupts, and the world has been mostly fortunate that the power the US has had has not been abused worse than it has. We're approaching scary, risky times, and we could go wrong to such a degree that the world would be worse off, but to date, I believe the world is a better place than it's ever been and the nation that has done the most to make that progress happen is the US.
 
I am a bit conflicted, since as I have posted before, have French Canadian and Ojibwa (Anishinaabeg) blood maternally, and Hessian (Alsace-Lorriane region) blood paternally. My ancestors have warred vs the US colonies/govmint in the mid-late 1700s (7 Years or French-Indian War, and the Revolutionary War). So should I still have a hatchet to grind, and flags to wave vs the Union (Yankees), like the South (Confederate descendants) do?

damn, man, except for a bit of African American blood, you're like a perfect ethnic representation of the history of Michigan... Native, French, and then the German farmers flooding in. I saw a map once that had the majority ethnicity of Michigan by county, and they were overwhelmingly German. only exceptions were the Dutch counties around Holland, the Finns in the UP, and African in Wayne county.

but anyways, I don't think you have an axe to grind, but the Southerners don't either. you lose a war, get over it. or move.

Quebec, The South, etc.
 
damn, man, except for a bit of African American blood, you're like a perfect ethnic representation of the history of Michigan... Native, French, and then the German farmers flooding in. I saw a map once that had the majority ethnicity of Michigan by county, and they were overwhelmingly German. only exceptions were the Dutch counties around Holland, the Finns in the UP, and African in Wayne county.

but anyways, I don't think you have an axe to grind, but the Southerners don't either. you lose a war, get over it. or move.

Quebec, The South, etc.

Yeah, the central UP, NW lower and urban Detroit all roots, maybe I should have got into politics and run for Governor.
orngbirin.gif
 
Sometimes. But I think America is the sum of it's parts, the fruits of it's works, and the influence of it's ideas and examples. I don't disagree with all the bad stuff people are throwing out there. But I also believe power corrupts, and the world has been mostly fortunate that the power the US has had has not been abused worse than it has. We're approaching scary, risky times, and we could go wrong to such a degree that the world would be worse off, but to date, I believe the world is a better place than it's ever been and the nation that has done the most to make that progress happen is the US.

I think it was Daniel Ellsberg (he was the main guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers, former Marine, and former RAND Corp. nuclear policy analyst), in one of his books talked about how during the Cold War, the thinking at these high levels of policy making (Pentagon, RAND, etc.) was that as we got into high-stakes nuclear brinkmanship with the USSR, China, and just about anyone else we felt like, if they believed we were violently psychotic, totally irrational, and unpredictable, they would always be the first to blink and back down. And so... that's what we did.

Like I said, I don't remember the original source, so don't quote me on it, but I'm curious now to find it, and re-read.

It seems to make sense no? We go around blathering about freedom and democracy, with our own gerrymandered voter districts, dark money, fixed primaries, racist pandering... we talk about bringing freedom and justice to oppressed people, then we bomb the shit out of their water systems, power grid, drive around their cities in armored columns shooting anything that moves, bomb their weddings and funerals, deny it, offer token blood money condolence payments to the survivors if they know somebody...

maybe Russia or China would be just as bad, if they could, I guess.
 
I have no idea what the manifesto was supposed to mean.

OK - I'll try to boil down the 35 pages.

The manifesto was an argument that technology was bad for the human race, causing more suffering than it prevented. It called for a revolution against big industry and advanced technology. (So it's the opposite of what I think.) It also rails about political correctness, especially at universities. The anti-liberal part would fit in really well with the extreme MAGA hat wearing types that "aren't racist, but...". His arguments would make him a leader of those types, because some of what he writes does hit at leftist stereotypes that do exist to some degree. (If people listen to Alex Jones, they can handle a lot more crazy than the Unabomber's arguments.) However, his stereotype of a leftist is, at its core, full of self-loathing and feelings of inferiority.

But after that, he starts making arguments I agree with. He says man requires a "power process". He need to have some control to set goals that require effort and achieve them. I do think that's a big issue we face. It used to be that providing for biological needs was a goal that required effort and was achievable through that effort. Today, he argues, you can fulfill biological need through obedience to our system, and a man has to create surrogate activities to fulfill the power process.

He lobs that argument at scientists too. He says the pursuit of technology is not generally driven by scientific curiosity or a desire to help mankind as claimed. It's a researchers surrogate activity, a way to fulfill their power process.

He equates the ability for a person to fulfill their power process with freedom and then lays out an argument that technology makes that opportunity more and more scarce to the average person.

Then he starts making predictions about the future (manifesto is 23 years old now.) He predicts that without intervention, computers will probably be able to do everything people can do, but better. He argues that if computers are allowed to make decisions at that point, we will be at their mercy, unable to predict what they will decide. Machines won't need to take over and we won't decide to put them in power, but because they always appear to produce better results, we'll do whatever they direct us to do. If complete control isn't given to machines, there will only be a few elite making decisions at the top.

If computers can't do everything better than people, they will still do a lot of things better than people, which will lead to a huge labor surplus at "lower levels of ability". At higher levels of ability, more and more will be expected and more training will be required. Fewer and fewer people will reach the top. As machines do the important work, we may keep ourselves busy with an increase in service industries. "[FONT=Helvetica, Verdana, Arial]Thus people will would spend their time shinning each others shoes, driving each other around inn taxicab, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other's tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, , crime, "cults," hate groups)..."

Then he argues that it is not enough to be against something, you must also be for something and he lays out his 'return to nature' plan.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
But after that, he starts making arguments I agree with. He says man requires a "power process". He need to have some control to set goals that require effort and achieve them. I do think that's a big issue we face. It used to be that providing for biological needs was a goal that required effort and was achievable through that effort. Today, he argues, you can fulfill biological need through obedience to our system, and a man has to create surrogate activities to fulfill the power process.

Really?

You agree with that?

I hate to burst your bubble but Abraham Maslow was only one of numerous behaviorists/behavioral psychologists who was saying this and things like it long before Kaczynski came along.
 
Really?

You agree with that?

I hate to burst your bubble but Abraham Maslow was only one of numerous behaviorists/behavioral psychologists who was saying this and things like it long before Kaczynski came along.

That doesn't surprise me. I think everybody kind of knows T-rex doesn't want to be fed. T-rex wants to hunt.

(And I think we've talked about Maslow here before.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top