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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don’t consider property destruction “violence”. Violence for me can only occur if there is a nervous system involved. Defining it otherwise seems a bit disingenuous, imo. Vandalism is not the same as an act against a person or animal.
If I break into your home and trash the place, it’s not violence? You should speak to people who experienced that. Granted, this is between real people and not corporations. And there is a line, somewhere, between vandalism and destruction where it turns to violence. It’s compIicated. I just completely disagree with the statement that destruction of property is never violence.
They try to make it equivalent so they can classify people who smash windows in protest as “violent criminals” in order to increase the penalties which is a complete mischaracterization. If the act of vandalism has knock on effects then those are separate from the act itself and should be dealt with separately.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
He didn’t say “swasticars.” He said “property.” Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.
My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it’s just property damage.
Hahahaha, you went and one-upped your own stupid comment. Yes, clearly any rational person sees vandalizing swasticars to be just as evil as destroying essential infrastructure for human survival or terrorizing innocent people with racial hatred that has historically let to their murders.
You’re a fucking idiot cosplaying as an iNTelLecTuAl.
You’re also blocked because you’re a waste of everyone’s time.
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.
One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
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.
Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.
Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?
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.
How is that relevant? The definition doesn’t fit the situation. If you want to propose a new definition, feel free.
Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That’s harm.
Maybe not a lot of harm. But it’s harm.
Still not violence
It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.
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?
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.
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.
In the U.K. it’s criminal damage, not sure what the USA exact term will be, but it won’t be terrorism.
It’s not terrorism if it’s not even trying to kill people. That’s just destruction of property or arson in this case.
Property damage is not violence against civilians.
Anything that’s not the state is civilian. That includes civilian property. And I, too, cheer on violence against the oppressive class.
I don’t consider property destruction “violence”. Violence for me can only occur if there is a nervous system involved. Defining it otherwise seems a bit disingenuous, imo. Vandalism is not the same as an act against a person or animal.
If I break into your home and trash the place, it’s not violence? You should speak to people who experienced that. Granted, this is between real people and not corporations. And there is a line, somewhere, between vandalism and destruction where it turns to violence. It’s compIicated. I just completely disagree with the statement that destruction of property is never violence.
They try to make it equivalent so they can classify people who smash windows in protest as “violent criminals” in order to increase the penalties which is a complete mischaracterization. If the act of vandalism has knock on effects then those are separate from the act itself and should be dealt with separately.
Property is not people though.
Otherwise shorting companies would also be terrorism.
Only if you’re shorting them to further a political goal.
Yeah, but have you ever heard of people shorting particular companies for political reasons being called terrorists outside WallStreetBets?
No, but if someone did, and could support their case, I’d allow it.
What if I blew up a water tower?
Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)
Then your act of vandalism/sabotage would have effects that harms people. Is this so difficult for you to understand? SMH.
It’s quite easy to understand. But you said “Property damage is not violence against civilians.”
Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.
Yeah, I get the argument that you’re trying to make, but this is a really shitty time to play devil’s advocate.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don’t even believe ourselves.
If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.
Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?
You’re 100% playing devil’s advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you’re saying matters only works when what you’re saying… actually matters.
No falsehoods like “property damage isn’t violence against civilians,” when we both know perfectly well it can be.
“False equivalency” seems to be another way of saying that you can’t defend your position without illustrating that you define “violence against civilians” based on how much you like the civilians in question.
Who is the intended audience of that comment that you believe will equate sources of food and water to swasticars?
He didn’t say “swasticars.” He said “property.” Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.
My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it’s just property damage.
Hahahaha, you went and one-upped your own stupid comment. Yes, clearly any rational person sees vandalizing swasticars to be just as evil as destroying essential infrastructure for human survival or terrorizing innocent people with racial hatred that has historically let to their murders.
You’re a fucking idiot cosplaying as an iNTelLecTuAl.
You’re also blocked because you’re a waste of everyone’s time.
Just another Elon stan
I wonder where you were when that guy showed up and beat Paul Pelosi almost to death with a hammer. Laughing probably, along with most Republicans
Why do you think that? Because I’m trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?
That’s a threat of violence against a civilian. Fucking cars in a dealership is just vandalism.
Do you think the employees of the dealership felt threatened?
What you’re missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an “attack”
just put maga on the sign