• technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    15 minutes ago

    This is the inevitable conclusion of decades of justifying endless violence by labeling people “terrorists”. The word has no meaning other than “target of the state”. And now the state is this.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • And009@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

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

    • fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours 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.

        • MooseyMoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 minutes ago

          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.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours 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.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    13 hours ago

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