Been thinking about this a lot. They can say it’s terrorism. History is written by the winners.
But…
Rebellion is constitutional, but not legal. If you rebel, you die a terrorist or live a hero. Not much middle ground.
Spontaneous combustion
“Trump administration looking to categorize Tesla vandalism as domestic terrorism” Because Republicans are cowards without principles who can never even think of opposing him.
Good. Do more.
Ohhhhhh nooooooooooo! Let me grab my very tiny violin.
Problem with setting Teslas on fire is we can’t know if it’s an act of protest or if they just did that on their own.
Could be insurance fraud too.
Probably a lot of the time it is. Nows a great time to do it if you’re gonna.
Saw a post earlier where a guy was 42,000$ underwater on his and wanted to offload it at that big of a loss before his insurance dropped it entirely.
Exactly 🤣🔥
I was JUST about to say; how do we know they didn’t just do that? or that this wasn’t a buggy firmware update that just did that? or a malicious firmware update that did this?
They’ve become sentient, and are committing suicide.
This made me laugh out loud at my desk. Thank you
LoL 😂
deleted by creator
Oh no. Anyways.
if you know anything about who did it no you don’t
Maybe, maybe this is actually stochastic terrorism being carried out by MAGA themselves.
Think about it, their plan is to declare martial law - right? Conservatives already hate EVs, they think that Trump is a ‘good’ billionaire while billionaires like Gates are ‘bad’ billionaires - I don’t think it would take much to make Musk out to be a ‘bad’ billionaire.
Idk if this is as clear as ‘good guys vs bad guys’ - these are freedom fighters, but it’s never been clearer that a lot of people are divided on what ‘free’ actually means. You shouldn’t assume that the people doing this are actually on your side.
The engineers did this, Teslas just kind of do this.
It’s obviously the MAGA crowd. They’ve spent years complaining about electric vehicles. They’ve just escalated that to burning them out. The police need to go have a nice chat with the rolling coal types.
Probably god’s will or something. What’s the pont of investigating.
We know that Teslas sometimes just catch fire on their own.
We also know that sometimes Tesla drivers will set their cars on fire themselves on purpose. Because of that…
We also know that Elon has a backdoor into all Teslas.
Now ask yourself which is more likely, the woke liberal crybabies actually causing violence or a drug addled and politically embattled CEO of a company that lost 50% of its value in the past 3 months creating a false flag to villainize the left and get insurance to cover damage to the vehicles he can’t sell?
/s (kind of)
Wdym by “backdoor into all Teslas”
- This could mean “taking an industry standard sorfware update feature and making it abusively aggressive to or push malware to end users”
- it could mean “grants tesla 25-75% of the car’s controls from the internet”
- it could mean the former AND “grants access to diagnostics, settings and controls the consumer cannot access themselves”
- it could also mean “can run arbitrary code on your tesla at any time with little or no notice”
If unsold teslas catch fire, i’m convinced it’s some insurance scam. A car sold and a car gone that they can’t fix anyway
They’ve already shown what they are capable of, in terms of scam behavior, up in Canada.
Didnt the Nazi party burn down the Reichstag and blame it on the other party?
They blamed it on the communist party, yes. There were 8 parties represented in the Reichstag at the time though.
Thank you. My history has unfortunately become a bit rusty
Given Elons history, it’s definitely possible.
Insurance fraud due to slow sales
perfect. let’s see if all tesla dealerships do it
In posts on X following the incident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk called the incidents “terrorism” and said the company “just makes electric cars and has done nothing to deserve these evil attacks.”
OK buddy.
“Evil attacks”, like we’re killing puppies, or something.
It’s vandalism against machines, and the only victim here is the insurance companies.
“Evil attacks”, like we’re killing puppies, or something.
Leave the puppy killing to the expert, Kristi Noem.
It’s not terrorism. They were just peacefully touring the dealerships. Just like January 6. Peacefully touring.
The cars suck, but he’s right that the company hasn’t done anything to deserve this. He’s the one who chose to make himself the face of Tesla, though, so however people feel about him, they’ll feel about any business he owns.
Terrorism, though? Hardly. It’s protest. He’s the one doing terrorism by dismantling the government.
This is terrorism. Storming the capitol is clearly not.
The cars are poorly designed to the point of being dangerous. They deserve it a little.
Terrorism, though? Hardly.
Pretty much the definition of terrorism. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
That’s what was so terrifying about the Patriot Act for so long.
Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.
So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, your a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.
If that’s what you’re hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn’t matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does.
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
No, what you wrote is:
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.
Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
criminal acts
With this definition, a government can do anything it wants without it being terrorism because it gets to decide what’s criminal. So while it may be terrorism by definition, that definition is pretty useless without a lot of context.
Violent, criminal acts
Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.
Gonna disagree with the anarchist viewpoint because physical damage to inanimate objects can still cause PTSD, battered spouse syndrome with enough incidents over time, etc. It’s the threat of danger that matters.
Just because it doesn’t fit your ideological view doesn’t mean people are lying by looking at it differently
It’s the threat of danger that matters.
Correct! It is the threat of danger that matters. Domestic violence as you described is threatening and abusive, and therefore violent.
Is it the same thing when the property is owned by a company, not a person?
Is graffiti terrorism? It’s property damage. It can be ideologically motivated. If someone had spray painted the cars, instead of lit them on fire… would it still be terrorism?
Who was threatened here?
Yep the idea of terrorism bad is honestly kinda overly simple. Can it be bad? Sure especially if you don’t have a specific target but well the IRA, American Revolutionaries, and Zapatistas have shown that there is a good way to go about it. The term of the day is damage minimization.
Yep. Nobody (okay, very few people) want to burn Teslas, or make car bombs, or dress up as indians and throw a shipment of tea into the Boston harbor, but when you live in a state where the government is no longer governing for the people (even if the people knowingly, or unknowingly selected that government), ignores it’s citizens or even actively harms them, then you don’t have much choice. You have to defend yourself.
Surprisingly, Star Wars is a great example of this. A rinky dink political group (rebels) blowing up a military installation (death star) is terrorism. That does not mean the action was unjustified.
Terrorism that succeeds is called revolution.
It’s not terrorism if it’s war.
Property damage is not violence
Every definition that I can find says it is but maybe you’d like to provide one that says otherwise.
Its an Anarchist thing, you wouldn’t get it.
Super simple version?
Violence is defined by the state in such a way that it binds the actions of its subjects, but exempts the actions of itself/its agents.
Look up ‘systemic violence’ or ‘stochastic terrorism’ and you can begin to see how it becomes harder to draw very clear lines than you seem to think is.
Lets go with your definition that violence includes acts against property.
Ok… are… taxes violence?
Is it violent to threaten you with immediate arrest if found operating a car without a valid liscense?
Howabout valid insurance?
Is civil asset forfeiture violence?
Is emminent domain violence?
Howabout clearing a homeless encampment, destroying all their belongings?
Is that violent?
Is it violent to, either intentionally or unintentionally… crash the stock market and knock about 20% off of the value of 401ks of the majority of the population?
Reminder that involuntary assault and involuntary murder / manslaughter… are violent crimes.
… The most basic definition of what a State is, is “a formalized group that has the ‘legitimate’ monopoly of the use of force (violence) within a defined geographic area.”
So you don’t have one? Glad we sorted that.
Oh, are you asking me, personally, for a definition of violence, just flat out, with no context?
I’d say violence is anything that causes unnecessary suffering to a living being, or significant damage to a nonliving thing.
What exactly do I mean by that?
Well, its quite context dependent.
Is burning down a Tesla dealership violent?
Sure!
Is a lesser act of violence in pursuit of a reduction of much, much greater violence justifiable?
Again, context matters, but generally speaking, the world is built upon violence, people just disagree about when it is justified.
If a man has pummeled you with hammer blows, you’d be justified in doing some violence back to him to get him to stop.
If a cartoon supervillain has become either the most or second most poweful man in the world, he has a history of and declared intention to commit mass systemic violence against hundreds of millions of people… and burning down some of his shittily designed and built self-immolating cars stands a good chance at knocking him, his grip on the minds of his idiot sycophants, and his overall level of power and influence down a peg?
When there are no ‘legitimate’ means that will effectively do this, effectively lessen his capacity to do violence against millions?
When this harms only things directly, and not people? When those things are overpriced luxury items?
Well, I’d rather not keep taking the hammer blows.
If you’ve got a more peaceful way to stop the hammering, I’d love to hear it… but my bones are breaking.
Yes, but that definition also defines… basically all the most heinous things that Trump and those around him have done in the last… 5 years, lets say? … as terrorism.
Remember CPAC, 2022?
… kinda speaks for itself.
You can make that argument but you’re not arguing that burning down a Tesla dealership isn’t terrorism, you’re just making a whataboutism.
Yes, that is basically what I am doing.
Was that not clear?
I am attempting to point out the given definition of terrorism is quite broad, and easily interpreted subjectively depending on your biases.
Burn down a Tesla dealership?
Terrorism.
Boston Tea Party?
Terrorism.
Jan 6th?
Terrorism.
Bay of Pigs Invasion?
Terrorism, more technically ‘State Terrorism’.
Many, many acts of resistance groups in German occupied Europe during WW2?
Also Terrorism.
Order an extrajudicial assasination? Order or carry out mass arrests without proper warrants or authority?
Plant false evidence or fabricate some kind of ‘suspicious behavior’ to justify an arrest or detainment or use of force or conviction, motivated by a political/religious/ethic/etc bias?
Again, Terrorism, though more specifically that is ‘State Terrorism’.
Saying “I am going to kill [very important political figure]”?
Terrorism.
Pilot a ship on the sea to harass dragnet fishing boats or whalers?
Terrorism.
Any protest group that has ‘illegally’ gathered in an area or building without a permit, where a single person threw a punch or resisted arrest?
Again, also terrorism.
… All of these things either are or could easily be interpreted to be both violent and criminal acts, with either a motivation or desired effect being biased toward some specific group of people.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
You may note that precisely defining terrorism is actually somewhat difficult, as indicated by the wide range of different definitions used by different groups and at different times, and is actually the subject of a whole lot of academic and legal debate and disagreement, with slight but very significant differences over time and place/jurisdiction.
There we go, hahah!
Then we are in agreement
Great!
I am glad you agree that by your (the FBI’s current) definition, most police in the US are terrorists, every President going back to at least JFK is a terrorist, everyone who violently resisted the Nazis were terrorists, and every single protest everywhere, ever, that has involved any single member of that protest being charged with resisting arrest has also been terrorism.
Rather it is vandalism, because Terrorism, its acts cause terror in the population.
nobody is terrified, except for billionaires, like crybaby musk.
Rather it is vandalism
I don’t understand what you wrote but the two are not mutually exclusive.
And yet they’re different things in this context anyways.
I didn’t say they weren’t different.
Then your pedantry was either pointless or a rhetorical attempt to derail the conversation.
Not sure why some people are disagreeing - it for sure fits the definition. I’m not exactly sad about it - Musk is helping to rip apart the country and I have a hard time blaming people who feel that helping to rip apart one of his companies is about all they can do - but committing arson to further an ideology is terrorism.
Not sure why some people are disagreeing
They don’t like the connotation. Which is fair. Nuance is hard and if you say “yes, we’re terrorists” there’s no way that’s not going to be wielded against “your people” in the court of public opinion.
But facts are facts.
This is resisting, not furthering, ideological goals.
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
fuckelon
I’d say that’s an ethos rather than an ideology.
This is resisting, not furthering, ideological goals.
It’s the same thing.
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
Seriously? You need that explained to you? How much time do you have? Eccentric billionaire seeks to destroy democracy, manipulate the public, oppress and marginalize it’s people, consolidate wealth in the elite class, dismantle federal institutions that check him, defy the law, for starters. You haven’t heard about any of this? The “ideological goal” is to end it.
Sorry but I really don’t think it’s the same thing. People are motivated to do this to oppose an ideology, not to promote one. They could come from almost any ideological starting point, and all they want, essentially is a return to the status quo.
Again, which ideology does this action promote?
Sorry but I really don’t think it’s the same thing.
There’s no need to apologize for disagreeing. Just explain yourself.
People are motivated to do this to oppose an ideology, not to promote one
How can you not see that those are the same thing?
Again, which ideology does this action promote?
I just explained that in great detail in the comment you replied to…
The board needs to remove Elon today.
the board are his handpicked toadies that have him a bonus despite tesla losing money
yep. I don’t get why they haven’t. He’s tanking their shit badly.
They just paid fucking 60 billion dollars to him to keep him from quitting. Maybe a smidge of sunk cost fallacy.
Good. Let them drown with their sinking ship. They enabled his power grab in the first place and decided something as perverted and absurd as granting a single man $60 billion. Let this be a lesson in history books.
Sigh. Fuck Elon. I hope the piece of shit goes bankrupt. Probably wont happen though :/
If trump had lost the election, he would be in jail and Elon would have been destroyed. Instead, we got… this.
yup. It’s a sad state of affairs right now :/
I think Elon would have been better off if Trump lost. I dunno though. He bought Twitter for 44 billion, and that seems to have let him buy the presidency for a mere 200 million. So maybe it’s money well spent.
Did that actually get paid out? Last I heard the judge said no, multiple times.
Yep. There was another shareholder vote and he won it.
No. As of 7 days ago, he has not been paid the $50 billion. The judge’s order is holding for now.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/12/elon_musk_appeals_voided_pay_package/
the honeymoon from the election is just wearing off.
You can remove him from the board but he’ll still have all of his shares. And I’d bet he’s not really doing much as Tesla these days anyway.
Not much except getting their dealerships torched.
My point was that they’re doing what they’re doing to hurt Elon. Removing Elon from the board does not prevent them from hurting Elon.
Even if they do, protests and boycotts need to continue past it. A lot of his wealth is in Tesla stock, and he’s going to benefit from the shadows if the public moves on and TSLA recovers.
Man, if I had the poor luck/foresight to have purchased a Tesla earlier, I would be driving like the politest mofo in existence these days.
I’d set it on fire and make an insurance claim.
Those damn leftists!
