this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
205 points (91.8% liked)

Funny

6813 readers
890 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
TheDude@sh.itjust.works
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
example@reddthat.com
VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works
205
Talking dog in a banana costume (suppo.fi)
submitted 4 months ago by dactylotheca@suppo.fi to c/funny@sh.itjust.works
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Despite appearances to the contrary I'm not a Kaczynski fan as such 😅

Description

A four-panel comic titled "Talking Dog in a Banana Costume". In the first panel, the title is displayed in bold pink and yellow letters. The second panel shows a fluffy brown dog wearing a yellow banana costume, happily barking "Woof! Hello!" as a man gestures excitedly in the background saying, "Ha! Say something else!" In the third panel, the dog assertively barks, "Bark! History will vindicate Ted Kaczynski!" The fourth panel shows the man scolding the dog, saying, "Bad dog! Stop defending the Unabomber!" The comic's style is colorful and cartoonish, with bold outlines and expressive characters.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You should see some of the footnotes from math papers where they quote a proof Ted made and include, “better known for other work”.

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Blowing people up isn't cool, but pursuing a primitive lifestyle? Gotta say, that's pretty cool.

[–] Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Pursuing a primitive lifestyle because you criticize the path society has been taking since industrialization? Even cooler. It's becoming more relevant by the day with enshittification and the ever increasing commodification of private, personal data. But blowing up people is still not cool.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Nice

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Dude's paper is worth a skim, if only to better understand villains in a narrative. He has some legitimate grievances. He makes some interesting points. He then brutally murdered a bunch of powerless academics and random middle-class citizens for no discernible purpose.

For comparison, Osama bin Laden killed a shitload of people, and arguably attained quite a few of his goals. Various assassins throughout recent history have shaped the future within their lifetimes - sometimes as intended, like the murder of Martin Luther King Jr., sometimes super duper not, like the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Teddy boy pointed high up the chain, said his problems were systemic, and punched some rando standing nearby.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

It was a giant hostage situation, to force papers to publish his manifesto so people would read it. That's definitely a discernible purpose. Not a justified purpose, but certainly discernible.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

The Black Hand achieved its goals, the creation of a "Greater Serbia" from the corpse of the Austria-Hungarian Empire.

They just ended up calling the state Yugoslavia instead.

And, okay, yeah, starting WW1 wasn't the PRECISE goal but they were trying to start a war that led to collapse, cut them some slack, jeez.

[–] threeduck@aussie.zone -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Good lord this is a lazy comic. Like, nice artwork and all, but all that just to be an exceptionally obvious mouth piece for an author opinion? Damn.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think you're really supposed to side with the Unibomber. But, hey, idk, maybe the author is also a white supremacist.

[–] rwhitisissle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

maybe the author is also a white supremacist.

What does white supremacism have to do with Ted Kaczynski?

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] rwhitisissle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

That article is straight dog shit. The author is basically saying that Ted Kaczynski is the stylistic precursor to a particular brand of white nationalist terrorism because he 1) killed people and 2) had a manifesto. That's it. The article even states:

Effectively, Tarrant followed Kaczynski’s eco-terrorism but reinterpreted it to employ white supremacy and Islamophobia.

Brenton Tarrant was the Christ Church Shooter. He hated non-whites and Muslims. Saying he "followed [Kaczynski's] eco-terrorism but reinterpreted it to employ white supremacy" is, at best, misleading, and at worst a bald-faced lie. Tarrant had virtually no ideological connection with Kaczynski. He described himself as an eco-facsist because he was a dimwitted 4chan kid who blamed overpopulation on Muslims. For all of his flaws, Kaczynski was an incredibly intelligent and well-educated anarchist and would have despised Tarrant. He didn't "reinterpret ecoterrorism as white nationalism." He just labeled himself something he thought sounded cool without understanding it.

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Or maybe it's just a stupid comic where the author thought of some random bad shit for the dog to say but didn't want to go with Hitler