Quote from: RE on Jun 19, 2023, 11:14 PMWhat is a "nutter"? 

Well now if THAT isn't a question worth discussing, I don't know what is.

Quote from: REI know of no such diagnosis in the DSM-V. 

Well, let us define our own then! I would lump "nutter" into the category of suffering some form of psychological disfunction that might not be readily apparent until it reveals itself in conversation or actions. A denial of facts and reality might be involved, long winded explanations involving unseen and potentially imaginary powers, conspiracies or groups, etc etc. Might this be a reasonable start? Might fit other clinically defined psychological conditions I imagine.

Quote from: RESince Ted did not pursue an insanity defense and was tried as sane, you can only accept the legal system's position that he was sane.

Bad logic. Just because he did not pursue the defense in court does make him sane.

Quote from: REI think sane is the opposite of nutter, though I am not sure since I am not sure of the definition of nutter.

Give the definition a whirl. You've still got a fully functioning mind.

Quote from: REFar as his intelligence goes, he was a child prodigy and mathematician, but being smart doesn't always lead to the best outcomes.  After all, Einstein, Feynman, Tesla and Oppenheimer were all real smart, and their thinking led to the development of the Atomic Bomb and the deaths of 100s of 1000s of innocent people.  So were they nutters also?,

I would stipulate that being a nutter does not preclude genius nutters existing. My proto-definition of nutter doesn't include anything about intelligence. Would yours?

Quote from: REAnyhow, TK was not your run of the mill serial killer, the whole campaign was qualitatively different so you are missing the point if you can't see the difference between him and your typical postal.

Qualitatively? Ted was qualitatively better because he had a manifesto and an argument? Okay, fine, then Ted was qualitatively inferior to Brenton Tarrant, he killed 51 in New Zealand and wrote a manifesto. I'm sure we can find other folks who wrote manufestos and then killed some folks.

Now, I understand you might like Ted's manifesto because it contained what you and I both think (as you've described the basics to me anyway) we agree with, but I promise many people agreed with Tarrant's manifesto as well, white supremecy probably being a more popular and known topic than just overall "civilzation be bad" angles that old school doomers are familiar with. 

Quote from: REThe only thing similar is the outcome, some random dead people.  Otherwise, it is very different and quite a singular event in the history so far written of collapse.
RE

Ted isn't unique in the collapse world. He was just one of the few folks who murdered folks using it as an excuse. Heinberg certainly advocated for a back to the land movement that would have killed millions, but he didn't hide in the woods and blow up some randos, he bought a Nissan Leaf and wrote books hoping to convince folks to change. No more effective than Ted, but no body count either. I don't think Richard fits the nutter category.