this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
958 points (98.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

11178 readers
1125 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 67 points 1 day ago (5 children)

terrorism

n 1: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I'm cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.

[–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 37 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If that's the definition, then I think it's textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can't use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it's not violent.

The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.

It depends on the arsonist, but I don't see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.

And then you've misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk's company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you're getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 2 points 16 hours ago

How is that relevant? The definition doesn't fit the situation. If you want to propose a new definition, feel free.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The relative risk of trying to do that is such that you are highly likely to injure someone. If no one got hurt in that type of attack, it's by sheer luck.

Also, not a soul thinks people attacking unpurchased vehicles is a threat to escalate to hurting people.

It's a crime, but not everything is 'terrorism'.

What about something different, farther away from civilian population centers being destroyed? Like, I don't know, Mount Rushmore being exploded? Or someone burning down an empty library? Maybe someone gaining access to an airport and throwing a molotov at the turbines of an empty jumbo jet?

These examples are explicitly more severe than damaging Teslas. But only few would argue any of those aren't terrorism, be it perpetrated by anti-imperialist Native Americans (exploding Mount Rushmore), by anti-intellectual fascists (burning down a library) or by environmentalists (molotov @ plane). All of these groups would have political motives which is really all that's needed for damaging property to be terrorism.

Whether terrorism can or cannot ever be justified is a different question. But I'd argue attacking Tesla dealerships through violent means is domestic terrorism - be it shooting them up or setting them on fire.

[–] And009@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 day ago

Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.

Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That's harm.

Maybe not a lot of harm. But it's harm.

[–] ThomasCrappersGhost@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

In the U.K. it’s criminal damage, not sure what the USA exact term will be, but it won’t be terrorism.

[–] LoveSausage@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is if you're using the definition provided by the person I'm replying to.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.

So taken to the "logical" extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it's a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.

This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You make some good points.

Back in the late 2000 or early 2010, there was a spate of, let's say, aggressive vandalism directed at abortion clinics. I cannot help but think that, even though no person was hurt, that it must have been pretty scary for both the employees, and the patients. But would you argue that it's not terrorism? I'd argue it was. It was a direct effort to use force, I would say violence, in order to cause a political change in practice, if not in fact.

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

That movement goes beyond aggressive vandalism: there were literal murders (and attempted murders) going back to the eighties and mostly during the nineties. So it's absolutely not true to say no one was hurt by those acts. Likewise, the bombings and arson that were inflicted were indeed meant to cause terror on a large scale, and was specifically targeting medical infrastructure, which is war crime level bad. So yeah: terrorism.

If it was only the vandalism, or walking around with dumb signs...then it's more arguable, even though I'm vehemently against them. IMHO violence against people is what crosses the line. Likewise, when anti-abortion groups are bombing literal medical clinics - that definitely goes beyond vandalism and into territory that causes harm to folks, even in the cases they didn't kill people directly with the bombs. Blocking people from entering clinics - trying to intimidate workers and patients...also more "grey", but can arguably cause direct harm/violence.

So to the case from the OP, IMHO vandalizing teslas isn't harming civilian infrastructure, or otherwise harming people directly, so...I don't think it crosses the line. Until it does, I think at best it's reaching to call it domestic terrorism, and at worst - it's just being bandied about to justify locking up political enemies and chill protests. I fully acknowledge it's a fairly morally grey area to be discussing, so thank you for a good exchange.

[–] MooseyMoose@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Property damage is not violence against civilians.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's not terrorism if it's not even trying to kill people. That's just destruction of property or arson in this case.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What you're missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an "attack"

[–] 4oreman@lemy.lol 6 points 1 day ago

just put maga on the sign