All answers default no, must be positive proof. If there is conflicting evidence, most recent chronologically rules regardless. Satire defaults to endorsement unless extreme evidence otherwise.
Update 2024-10-12 (PST): - References to IR and its consequences will be interpreted as agreeing with Ted Kaczynski's position, as the phrase inherently implies a negative view of the Industrial Revolution (AI summary of creator comment)
1,000
3.00
@placebo_username Well I assume the question is referring to if he likes the text titled "Industrial Revolution and it's Consequences," not that he likes the Industrial Revolution itself
@spiderduckpig I don't know of any text by that title. The Kaczynski manifesto is titled "Industrial Society and its Future."
@PaulHan Can you clarify?
@placebo_username You're right, it's actually the first few words in the text that read "The industrial revolution and its consequences," still pretty sure that's what the question is referring to though
@spiderduckpig I suppose incipits for religious texts are an ancient tradition... but usually Consequences would be capitalized in that case. I still think my literal reading makes more sense.
@PaulHan Please do clarify. The two interpretations of the answer are obviously extremely different.
@PaulHan Yes, it's very sad. But I don't think leaving this answer ambiguous will bring much comfort to his family.
@jskf You’re being a turboautist. Normies know that manifesto by the opening lines, not the actual title. It’s clear what he meant.
@FoxKHTML If it was in quotes/mentioned Ted Kaczynski it wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that quoting the line would also be a mildly amusing way to invert the answer. When I first read it I knew what it was referencing, but I still wasn't sure which interpretation was intended.
@FoxKHTML This is not at all a matter of common sense, both interpretations would make perfect sense.
@PaulHan He gave it 4 stars. I think this is strong enough positive proof he enjoyed Industrial Society and Its Future
@FoxKHTML is correct because if one were to acknowledge the existence of the phrase IR and its consequences it would only be in relation to agreeing with Uncle Ted’s position because the essence of the term is necessarily negative. Fox is totally right because it’s common sense and also logical. Daniel your position is not more logical just more myopic
@PaulHan to give an example, it is like recognizing the validity of the phrase “the terroristic american state” and having a positive view of america foreign policy