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

A Boring Dystopia

11178 readers
1066 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
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mrbeano@lemm.ee 174 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Those are the "goodie" terrorists... The fascists!

He's talking about the "baddie" terrorists... The antifascists!

Their goal is also to normalize political persecution through designating everything antifascist as a crime.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 68 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.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 37 points 1 day ago (9 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?

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 6 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MooseyMoose@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (27 children)

Property damage is not violence against civilians.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Easy. Just run for president and pardon yourself. Duh.

[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Guess that means they get a free pardon. The opposition should start calling them Patriots & promising them pardons.

[–] petrsimek1712@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 85 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Ken Klippenstein is a well known and well respected journalist.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Klippenstein

Not trying to be rude, but he should be a good enough source even though this is only a screenshot. Here's a link to the skeet (is that what they're called? gross?):

https://bsky.app/profile/kenklippenstein.bsky.social/post/3lk4te5j6tk24

But if that's not enough here's Reuters corroborating the same point:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-buy-new-tesla-show-support-musk-2025-03-11/

Trump says violence against Tesla is domestic terrorism

This took me less than three minutes to search, compile, and post. Cheers.

EDIT: The edits took longer because I'm also a dumbass and make a lot of silly mistakes and typos.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Reuters collaborating the same point

I think you mean corroborating

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

You know, 99% is still an A+

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I am indeed a dumbass and that is indeed what I meant. *hats off

[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago

Casual reminder, fuck Tesla. Fuck Elon. Damn swasticars, and a nazi to boot!

[–] glepswizardhat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Ken... Klipppenstein..?

The names right there. Maybe one of the most famous journalists in the current, albeit fragmented, era?

[–] wiLD0@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

https://youtu.be/itOd-DplBtA?t=23

https://ground.news/article/trump-says-he-will-label-violence-against-tesla-dealers-domestic-terrorism

...they're harming a great American company

I'd argue that Musk himself is also harming the company by exhibiting behaviors that Tesla's target customers find objectionable. If I didn't know Tesla shareholders better, I would have thought he should have been released from his position as CEO by now.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

But tilting at windmills is still patriotic.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›