Comment on Multiple Tesla vehicles were set on fire in Las Vegas and Kansas City

• kofe@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Gonna disagree with the anarchist viewpoint because physical damage to inanimate objects can still cause PTSD, battered spouse syndrome with enough incidents over time, etc. It’s the threat of danger that matters.

  Just because it doesn’t fit your ideological view doesn’t mean people are lying by looking at it differently

  source

  • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yep the idea of terrorism bad is honestly kinda overly simple. Can it be bad sure especially if you don’t have a specific target but we’ll the IRA, American Revolutionaries, and Zapatistas have shown that there is a good way to go about it. The term of the day is damage minimization.

    source

    • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Surprisingly, Star Wars is a great example of this. A rinky dink political group (rebels) blowing up a military installation (death star) is terrorism. That does not mean the action was unjustified.

      source

      • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It’s not terrorism if it’s war.

        source
      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Terrorism that succeeds is called revolution.

        source
      • k0e3@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        But they’re at war though, aren’t they? I suppose the Empire would still spin it that way.

        source
    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yep. Nobody (okay, very few people) want to burn Teslas, or make car bombs, or dress up as indians and throw a shipment of tea into the Boston harbor, but when you live in a state where the government is no longer governing for the people (even if the people knowingly, or unknowingly selected that government), ignores it’s citizens or even actively harms them, then you don’t have much choice. You have to defend yourself.

      source
  • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It’s the threat of danger that matters.

    Correct! It is the threat of danger that matters. Domestic violence as you described is threatening and abusive, and therefore violent.

    Is it the same thing when the property is owned by a company, not a person?

    Is graffiti terrorism? It’s property damage. It can be ideologically motivated. If someone had spray painted the cars, instead of lit them on fire… would it still be terrorism?

    Who was threatened here?

    source
• Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Property damage is not violence

  Every definition that I can find says it is but maybe you’d like to provide one that says otherwise.

  source

  • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Its an Anarchist thing, you wouldn’t get it.

    Super simple version?

    Violence is defined by the state in such a way that it binds the actions of its subjects, but exempts the actions of itself/its agents.

    Look up ‘systemic violence’ or ‘stochastic terrorism’ and you can begin to see how it becomes harder to draw very clear lines than you seem to think is.

    Lets go with your definition that violence includes acts against property.

    Ok… are… taxes violence?

    Is it violent to threaten you with immediate arrest if found operating a car without a valid liscense?

    Howabout valid insurance?

    Is civil asset forfeiture violence?

    Is emminent domain violence?

    Howabout clearing a homeless encampment, destroying all their belongings?

    Is that violent?

    Is it violent to, either intentionally or unintentionally… crash the stock market and knock about 20% off of the value of 401ks of the majority of the population?

    source

    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      So you don’t have one? Glad we sorted that.

      source

      • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Oh, are you asking me, personally, for a definition of violence, just flat out, with no context?

        I’d say violence is anything that causes unnecessary suffering to a living being, or significant damage to a nonliving thing.

        What exactly do I mean by that?

        Well, its quite context dependent.

        Is burning down a Tesla dealership violent?

        Sure!

        Is a lesser act of violence in pursuit of a reduction of much, much greater violence justifiable?

        Again, context matters, but generally speaking, the world is built upon violence, people just disagree about when it is justified.

        If a man has pummeled you with hammer blows, you’d be justified in doing some violence back to him to get him to stop.

        If a cartoon supervillain has become either the most or second most poweful man in the world, he has a history of and declared intention to commit mass systemic violence against hundreds of millions of people… and burning down some of his shittily designed and built self-immolating cars stands a good chance at knocking him, his grip on the minds of idiot sycophants, and his overall level of power and influence down a peg?

        When there are no ‘legitimate’ means that will effectively do this, effectively lessen his capacity to do violence against millions?

        Well, I’d rather not keep taking the hammer blows.

        If you’ve got a more peaceful way to stop the hammering, I’d love to hear it… but my bones are breaking.

        source

        • -> View More Comments