In posts on X following the incident, Tesla CEO Elon Musk called the incidents “terrorism” and said the company “just makes electric cars and has done nothing to deserve these evil attacks.”
OK buddy.
The cars suck, but he’s right that the company hasn’t done anything to deserve this. He’s the one who chose to make himself the face of Tesla, though, so however people feel about him, they’ll feel about any business he owns.
Terrorism, though? Hardly. It’s protest. He’s the one doing terrorism by dismantling the government.
Terrorism, though? Hardly.
Pretty much the definition of terrorism. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
That’s what was so terrifying about the Patriot Act for so long.
Violent, criminal acts
Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.
Yes, but that definition also defines… basically all the most heinous things that Trump and those around him have done in the last… 5 years, lets say? … as terrorism.
Remember CPAC, 2022?
… kinda speaks for itself.
Rather it is vandalism, because Terrorism, its acts cause terror in the population.
Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.
So what I’m hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you’re a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.
Not sure why some people are disagreeing - it for sure fits the definition. I’m not exactly sad about it - Musk is helping to rip apart the country and I have a hard time blaming people who feel that helping to rip apart one of his companies is about all they can do - but committing arson to further an ideology is terrorism.
It’s property damage that was done specifically to avoid hurting people. By that interpretation, Banksy could also be classified as a terrorist.
This is resisting, not furthering, ideological goals.
Could you state the ideological goal of these attacks?
They just paid fucking 60 billion dollars to him to keep him from quitting. Maybe a smidge of sunk cost fallacy.
You can remove him from the board but he’ll still have all of his shares. And I’d bet he’s not really doing much as Tesla these days anyway.
“Evil attacks”, like we’re killing puppies, or something.
It’s vandalism against machines, and the only victim here is the insurance companies.
Also some people who bought teslas before all this happened having their rates go up. And the people who had their Tesla vandalized or totaled who didn’t get a good enough payout from insurance to replace it (if you’ve ever dealt with insurance you know you’re not getting the actual value back). I’m not saying I’m losing sleep over it, but still.
I had a friend buy a Tesla after Elon was talking about buying twitter but before one could objectively say he went full fash, and I told him he’d be embarrassed about it eventually. He went through with it because it had X features or whatnot. Do I feel bad for him? A little, but it’s not like the writing wasn’t on the wall. Obviously once Elon was with Trump 24/7 he said he regretted it, but it’s a bit late for that.
There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so it sucks to see consumers be targeted, but I understand. I have a phone and I’m sure somewhere child slavery was involved. Does that make me a bad person? Yes, the answer is objectively yes. We’re all making shitty choices every day and if one day someone decides to draw the line and I’m on the wrong side of it, I guess I’ll just have to cope. That’s kinda how I feel about it. So Tesla owners are being harmed too, but I don’t know that I’d call them victims of anything except their own decisions. I’m not sure they deserve it all equally, but we all kinda suck so whatever.
