There's a pattern of left-leaning mathematician he fits into, that I also see in some other mathematicians, one example being LKY and probably his son. People who would have equality of outcome as a goal, but see through the bullshit, aren't inclined to play along with it, are smart enough to understand concepts of trade-offs and incentives, and stay tied to reality instead of drifting off into a world of words and analogies. They look kind of right wing, but they'd support an inheritance tax that real right wingers would oppose.

>The ideas in this manifesto led its author to kill.

So did the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Asimov's Foundation trilogy inspired violence. And the Catcher in the Rye. And the Bible.

Let's not pretend many of the concepts in this manifesto haven't become mainstream within the tech community. Many here would agree with the premise that modern technological society (specifically the web) has done more harm to humanity than good, would agree with its criticisms of leftist and PC ideology, and that effecting meaningful change within the existing corrupt systems of government is impossible.

This manifesto has shaped modern tech culture and politics in profound ways and it does no good not to acknowledge the degree to which many here would agree with it in principle. It should be read and it should be discussed openly.

Definitely.

Antifa/anarchists/violent revolutionaries/terrorists carry water for their nemesis: property owners and the afraid middle-class lean on government and the "tough-on crime" right to maintain order by any means to the end. Nonviolent obstruction is the only practical, legitimate path to change that's proven to work.

Unpopular and controversial works are worth understanding, not book-burning/censorship because we don't like the author or their views.