Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ishkah]

I've been writing a few research essays for an online archive of texts called The Ted K Archive. So, I just wanted to discuss the ethics of the project with people, because I think there's obviously a lot of interesting unethical pitfalls to curating an archive based around interest in a serial killer.

Here's why the name of the website was chosen:

People who are curious about his life and impact are just the main audience we hope to draw in with this website.

Since we think he's going to be remembered as a true crime curiosity anyways, we might as well capitalize on that and use it as a space to promote critiques of people with similar politics to him and help with similar mental health issues to him.

And here's how the website is explained on the about page:

We, everyone who has contributed, have archived:

• A ton of primary source documents on Ted's life and ideas.
• Documents analyzing the effect he had on the public's understanding of radical environmentalists, anarchists, terrorists, criminals, the mentally ill & simple mental neurodivergence.
• Lots of great suggested reading on anarchism & other issues.

We, the librarians who bought the website domain, are pro-tech anarchists, but we just find his life story and impact really interesting.

So, we’re hoping the website will continue to draw people in with similar politics to him and similar mental health issues frankly. Then for the cold hard reality of the primary source reading material, the epic-ness of the suggested reading material and the inviting discussion spaces connected to the website, to all have a deprogramming effect and be a mental health support.

For example, a popular text on the website for a while was simply a book on how to Unfuck Your Friendships and the discord has already played host to a discussion between people encouraging each other to think rationally about their depression diagnosis.

Also, there are fans of Ted K who literally glorify the Khmer Rouge's genocide and burning down of cities, so having books about that genocide on the archive to hopefully, yes deprogramme, simple dogmatic reasoning, holding people back from compassionately relating to how **** up a policy that was is we think a good thing.

The reason we're saying all this is simply to promote transparency. We think due to the undesirability of anti-tech philosophy, opening all its rarer arguments up to scrutiny is likely going to have a positive outcome in drawing in more critical analysis and leading more people to reject the ideas.

Saying all that, this isn't the main goal of the archive by any means, we're mainly just happy to have been able to achieve archiving goals like creating parallel pages for every PDF on the Calif. Uni. website archive of UNABOM documents, making them easier to search through.
-

Screenshot 2023-12-01 160731.jpg (247.79 KiB) Viewed 3292 times

So, like one of my hobbies currently is trying to engage people in productive debates and recommending texts I enjoy discussing which argue people over to being pro-tech, but I'm open to arguments that I should be anti-tech.

And obviously just discouraging people from going down the anti-tech road for any length of time would also be a win for me, even if that means just staying with their old politics. As becoming an anti-tech extremist can have disastrous consequences for people whilst they're involved with it, like copy-cat terrorist networks:

Kaczynski’s influence on ITS is difficult to miss. Many parts of the group’s communiqués are merely paraphrases of the Manifesto: ‘The essence of the power process has four parts: setting out of the goal, effort, attainment of the goal, and Autonomy’. But the depth of Kaczynski’s influence on ITS is difficult to appreciate without knowing the origins of his ideas. ITS cites Morris’s The Human Zoo in support of its claim that ‘the Wild Nature of the human being in general was perverted when it started to become civilized’. The same communiqué later echoes Morris without citing him: ‘it is totally abnormal to live together with hundreds of strangers around you’.

Also, here's a list of ethical steps taken by the project:

We have a list of essays critiquing Ted’s politics & philosophy on the introduction page of the website.

There are long critiques and disclaimers added to some texts and we aim to add more.

When collecting together research on misanthropic groups and projects, we simply title the text ‘a text dump on ______’. That way for example we don’t dignify fictional stories terror groups weave when they write their own press releases and title them as communiqués.

Anyone can join the debate over which texts should go up on the website, obviously if you join just to troll or spam though, you will be removed.

A record will be kept of all texts that were rejected, whether for minor formatting reasons or deeply held political reasons.

A record will also be kept of controversial texts that were approved, where for example there was a sizable disagreement.

Ideally, in the future we will have popular sorting mechanisms directly under the main search box, such as a check box for 'only anarchist texts' that would exclude texts labelled 'not anarchist'.

Finally, here's a few other archival projects for comparison:

The Ted Kaczynski Papers - A University special collections archive which Ted K sent copies of all his letters to, the library is mostly offline, but people can ask for scans of two folders per month.

UNABOM Collection - Another university one that is made up of donated scans of an FBI guy who worked on the UNABOM taskforce. Lots of the scans are online in downloadable pdfs.

I don't think either of the archives above did much to publicize their archives, which was potentially a conscious ethical choice, to not make it easier to find for zealots, so to attempt to mainly cater to academic researchers.

The Anarchist Library - Huge archive that includes some non- and ex-anarchist texts, to document the reasons why people left anarchism or came to the philosophy late. But, it means archiving some really dumb stuff, like primitivist terrorists 'communiques'. I think they're wrong to not include disclaimers at the top of texts and to not format some of the texts as text dumps, but their argument is that's simply not their job as archivists.

[Lagayascienza]

I get why people have a fascination with serial killers. It's partly because their crimes are so awful we want to understand how they could do such horrid things, and maybe we are curious to see how they were caught and punished... I've read several books on serial killers. It's a morbid curiosity. If there is a market for this stuff - the archives you mention - I guess someone will produce it.

I'm not sure what you are asking, though. Is it about the ethics of producing and making such archives available? I don't understand how/where "pro-tech" and "anti-tech" comes into it.