this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
1008 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67669 readers
5431 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's perfectly reasonable to think that at least some of these could be false flag opperations orchestrated by the Trump administration to give them cover to arrest innocent people and eventually declare martial law. The more that possibility is part of the mainstream conversation, the more wind it takes out of their sails towards accomplishing those goals.
I wish the stock price would just collapse already along with organic consumer demand for the cars themselves evaporating into nothing so it could whither and die a natural death.
As much as I hate Musk, I'm not a fan of seeing property damaged. Not because I love the property, but because it's too easy to leverage it as terrorism by a regime that has a hard-on for labeling anything it doesn't like as such. Consumer collapse and bankruptcy would be beautiful to behold.
Damaging property is not terrorism. This is so tired.
I have a feeling, even if the World Trade Center had been completely depopulated on the morning of September 11th and the hijacked aircraft only had jihadists aboard, the event would have probably still been declared an act of terrorism.
The determination of what constitutes terrorism isn't for us normies to make. The people in power get to have that particular privilege, regardless of what we feel.
Peeaonally, I think terrorism requires a certain scale of either malice or destruction. Flying jetliners into an empty icon of the country? Definitely terrorism. Crashing a little Cessna into a National Forest? Probably not terrorism.
It has to be organized for one. One random person going out and doing something regardless of what they do, isn't terrorism domestic or otherwise.
And it doesn't matter, Pam bondy isn't really charging anyone under the domestic terrorism act. She's charging folks for malicious destruction of government property. And the reason she can charge them this way, is because Tesla receives financial assistance from the federal government. So this puts them under a clause in the law that allows the Pam to charge them as though they had set fire to Air Force One or something similar.
All of the domestic terrorism stuff, that's just political propaganda. It doesn't actually reflect what she is charging people with.
I disagree. Consider racist mass shootings by lone perpetrators. It's clearly an act attempting to incite terror and tension, many of them make it clear in their manifestos that they're trying to spark a 'race war'. But it's not organized, beyond being the result of stochastic terrorism.
I meant the legal definition. But I apparently misread it the other day when I was looking at it.
Ah, right. I'm not familiar enough with US law to realize.
I double checked my info above when you made your comment, I was wrong about it as far as the legal definition too. Your definition would fall under domestic terrorism legally too.
It seems like so far though Pam Bondi is using the malicious destruction of property charge.
Thanks for checking, it's refreshing to see that attitude and care online.
That's reasonable.
The definition of terrorism usually runs along the lines of, engaging in acts to cause fear for the purpose of achieving political goals. So, stalking someone isn't terrorism, but sending pictures of a politician in various locations with crosshairs drawn on them saying you will follow through unless/if they do x would be.
Now, the question becomes, are these arsonists setting fire to Tesla vehicles and showrooms because they want Musk to stop his political antics or because Musk is a giant asshole? I honestly think you could get reasonable doubt on that, provided you actually had a fair trial and weren't dropped in a deep, dark hole somewhere.