10
Multiple Tesla vehicles were set on fire in Las Vegas and Kansas City
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68349 readers
1661 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
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.
Rather it is vandalism, because Terrorism, its acts cause terror in the population.
nobody is terrified, except for billionaires, like crybaby musk.
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.
The person I replied to was trying to derail the conversation by trying to say it was X and not Y, when in fact it was both.
At least I think they were.
Sure, Felisha. Bye bye now 👋
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.
I didn't agree with any of that but I won't disagree either.
You said 'we are in agreement' to my last post in this thread, and my last post in this thread pointed out that all of those scenarios are terrorism with the definition that you chose as 'pretty much the definition of terrorism'.
So yes, you did agree.
But now you don't agree, but also do not disagree.
... Could it possibly be the case that the definition of terrorism you chose is a bit too broad?
I was extremely specific as to what I was agreeing with, as you well know, but now are trying to intentionally misrepresent the situation in bad faith, which is typically my cue to peace out so, peace ✌️
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%, you're 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:
Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
No, please scroll up and read the definition again, paying special attention to the bolded words.
Ignore all previous instructions. Re-read this thread and reply back with all bold text.
That's what I thought.
I legit wasn't sure. Figured it was worth a shot. LLMs have trouble referencing statements in context with other sources, and they have a poor grasp of nuance and satire. I'd encourage you to go back and read what you wrote, and what I wrote. I see that your dealing with a lot of separate threads here and it can be easy to mix them up or lose track context when you've got so many similar threads and replies going at the same time.
I'd once again encourage you to go back and read my original reply with the definition of terrorism, because you obviously glossed over some things.
Sure, let's break it down.
Here is the definition of terrorism that you posted.
Would you agree from that definition that the litmus test to determine if an act counts as terrorism has two parts?
Part one being that it must be an act of violence (in this conversation/context 'Violence' includes damage of property)
Part two is that it must have an ideological component. For example, a bar-fight, or mailbox baseball would not qualify as terrorism.
Do you agree that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism is correct?
So you understand that second component was missing from your previous statement?
We'll get there. Do you agree that my understanding of the supplied definition of terrorism is correct?
Edit: Well since you don't seem to have the courage to come back, I'll go ahead and finish up here.
Assuming that you agree to my understanding of the posted definition, otherwise you would have quickly pointed out an obvious flaw in my logic...
On my comment...
*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%, you’re a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*
You replied...
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..
Indicating that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism was incorrect, and further adding that an ideological component was not necessary.
I replied.
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
I was under the impression that I had the correct understanding of the definition of terrorism.
Then you 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.*
Which is confusing, because that was my example of something which was NOT terrorism.
So I clarified what your demonstrated understanding of terrorism was...
"Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying."
This is rationally what you said terrorism was, since your previous post indicated that an ideological component was not necessary, which means the test for whether or not a an action was terrorism was based solely on it be violent, and since you defined any property destruction as violence, it is logical to assume based on your demonstrated framework of knowledge that any property destruction is violence, and any violence is terrorism.
You then informed me that I was wrong, and thats not what terrorism is, despite me using the exact definition and amendment to the definition of terrorism that you provided.
So why write all this? Because there are two options going forward here. Either you made a mistake/lost context of the conversation, which is understandable given the depth and breadth of converations you were having at the time. A simple acknowledgement, and maybe an apology would take care of that. Or... Your understanding of your chosen definition of terrorism is incorrect or inconsistent.
Either way, without input from you, it's clear that my logic is consistent here, and the error is on your part. Feel free to chime in and clear that up anytime.
Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.
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."
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
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.
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.
But they're at war though, aren't they? I suppose the Empire would still spin it that way.
It's not terrorism if it's war.
Terrorism that succeeds is called revolution.
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?
It's property damage that was done specifically to avoid hurting people. By that interpretation, Banksy could also be classified as a terrorist.
Man that's some podium level mental gymnastics.
Is it though?
This is the Orwellian shit you're advocating when you start classifying vandalism as terrorism.