Came here to say this. I guess it could be considered violent because someone COULD get hurt…but I also feel like calling it violent to start is misleading and disappointing.
How to Blow Up a Pipeline is a great book exploring this concept. Why is destruction of private property even considered violence, and why is private property more protected than vulnerable populations? Why does the average person, not owning private property, even consider this dynamic?
I’ve heard of this book. It’s on a long list of things to read for me. I feel like I have to have this same conversation every time there’s a protest somewhere in the world where property gets damaged. That tired line of “I don’t understand why these people destroy their own city.” as if any of us own anything involved. It’s such an annoying thing that we are brainwashed to think this way. Like yeah, it’s my city, but if want to plant flowers in it, i can’t. If i want to plant crops in it, I can’t. If I want to decorate it, I can’t. If I want to have say in how it’s used and developed, I mostly can’t. So who’s is it again?
So, I’m not suggesting anyone do this but just as an FYI if you use fire or explosives to do it, the sentencing will be much harsher.
Because Tesla gets federal funding, the federal government can charge you as though you burned down government property.
This is the statue Pam Bondi is using to go after folks.
Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.
That statute is bullshit! Just because a corporation has some federal contacts doesn’t mean they need or deserve extra federal protection.
Hitting the production lines would be even more costly. If someone is going to take the risks, they might as well make it really count
How are unsold Teslas “government property”? Oh that’s right, they aren’t. Fucking fascists.
Stop. Hammer time.
Elon entering the find out stage. It is yet to be determined if his programming will allow him to actually learn the lesson.
If this keeps up at this rate then it won’t be a spike it will be a trend. You want to be trendy don’t you?
“I love my car. It’s the safest car,” Ramsdell said. “I’m not going to let somebody else judge me for the car I drive.”
It’s not and you are, you’ve just chosen not to care.
I mean the craziness of how much power musk has makes me really consider that wild conspiracy about how musk hacked the election could be true.
Not a conspiracy when Trump literally says Elon helped secure states like Pennsylvania.
And just like that, worrying about climate change has become a thing of the past.
ridiculous statement, you can hate Elon and Tesla, while caring about climate change. You may not be aware there are other electric vehicles not associated with Nazis. Right now, Elon is pushing for changes that increase climate change by supporting the Trump administration. Dealing any kind of social and monetary blow to Elon and his companies would hopefully discourage him from continuing his actions.
Forget climate change, have you considered the amount of toxic chemicals released into the atmosphere by burning down even one of these vehicles?
Give me a break, you don’t give a single shit about the environment.
Even if 1k burned unnecessarily, it’s No where near as impactful to the environment as the bad decision making a country with a GDP of 27 trillion USD will be making. We passed the largest bill to deal with climate change (Inflation Reduction act) the world has ever seen and now that may all get thrown away because of Donald, financially backed and influenced by the CEO of Tesla. Not only will Donald not fight to combat climate change, his is actively encouraging it by implementing policies that encourage fossil fuel use.
So in order to combat Trump’s lack of interest in reducing fossil fuel use, the solution is to destroy the most popular brand of electric cars, because the owner is of said electric car brand is helping Trump increase fossil fuel use, thus actively shooting himself in the foot.
Make it make sense.
Nobody said Elon is smart.
Are you denying that Donald is encouraging fossil fuel usage and by extension worsening climate change? Are you denying that Elon chose to financially support the candidate that would worsen fossil fuel usage?
How does Elon profit from that?
What?
