The FBI announced on Monday the creation of a task force intended to “crack down on violent Tesla attacks,” a move that follows a spate of such incidents appearing to target Elon Musk’s electric car manufacturer.
this is meant to be read without the emotional loading to the words that we’ve been conditioned with: ie X is implicitly bad… these are just words, whose meaning has more depth than what they actually define
terrorism is
the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims
violence is
an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm
arson is violence
and this particular act of violence is intended to achieve political or ideological aims (musk is a political figure albeit not an official government employee, and this is in response to his public political acts)
now, i’d argue it’s not “against non-combatants”, but perhaps it is? is destruction of a persons property constitute violence against them? it’s at least psychological - trying to scare/influence for sure
let’s not kid ourselves though: it is what it is… it’s just ridiculous that this is what they pursue while pardoning jan 6 offenders… the issue isn’t that they’re labelling this domestic terrorism. the issue is that it’s singled out because fElon asked daddy dictator
So are we suddenly pretending Musk isn’t a de facto government leader who might be manipulated by this? (Terrible wording, but y’all get my gist. I’m going hiking now.)
Terrorism is scaring/harming people to manipulate government.
Tesla is neither government nor their property damage is scaring people.
More trumped-up charges.
(It is hilariously fitting Trump the man and Trump the word fit so gand-in-hand)
this is meant to be read without the emotional loading to the words that we’ve been conditioned with: ie X is implicitly bad… these are just words, whose meaning has more depth than what they actually define
terrorism is
violence is
arson is violence
and this particular act of violence is intended to achieve political or ideological aims (musk is a political figure albeit not an official government employee, and this is in response to his public political acts)
now, i’d argue it’s not “against non-combatants”, but perhaps it is? is destruction of a persons property constitute violence against them? it’s at least psychological - trying to scare/influence for sure
let’s not kid ourselves though: it is what it is… it’s just ridiculous that this is what they pursue while pardoning jan 6 offenders… the issue isn’t that they’re labelling this domestic terrorism. the issue is that it’s singled out because fElon asked daddy dictator
Arson, its just arson.
So are we suddenly pretending Musk isn’t a de facto government leader who might be manipulated by this? (Terrible wording, but y’all get my gist. I’m going hiking now.)
I mean, it depends on who in the admin you ask.
If you want to abstract it enough, hurting Tesla hurts musk, who unfortunately is the government.
Not legally he’s not.
I don’t see how that’s relevant.
That only matters if it’s enforced.