this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
241 points (96.9% liked)

politics

22040 readers
3839 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'll take this opportunity to remind people that Tesla vehicles are surveillance devices, and that the cops have access to facial recognition software. Plan your life accordingly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Seriously good advice. Particularly since you can and will get charged with a terrorism offense. Let's be honest here, people are going after Tesla because of what Musk is doing in the government. That means that people are using violence and intimidation in order to intimidate a civilian population or influence government policy. I really doubt that prosecutors will not have trouble making such charges stick. Just because you're the good guys, doesn't mean you won't spend a lot of years in prison if you get caught.

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
  (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
  (B) appear to be intended—
      (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
      (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
      (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States

[–] TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm sure you know this but freedom fighters have long been called terrorists to try to delegitimize their cause. It takes a very special kind of bravery to risk everything and more for what you believe in, Knowing that you'll be slandered and slurred by what you're fighting against. I just hope in the end they're all vindicated.

On another note, it's wild that when the other side commits the same actions listed above it is never officially labeled as terrorism. We're all living in crazy land.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

600 mass shootings a year. 20+ targeted white nationalist massacres have happened since 2016, including the largest mass casualty event in american history in vegas, and none of those people were terrorists.

Yet, every one of them had a manifesto, and it was covered in every new outlet. No terrorist.

Let's call it like it is– this is nazi germany now. Brownshirts were deputized eight years ago and people only just made the connection when he pardoned them for trying to help his coup. (Something totally unprecedented and definitely not a direct parallel to weimar germany both allowing Hitler to create a gang of street fighters but also allowing them to do the putsch, and then giving Hitler a three year jail sentence, after which he reassembled the brown shirts and started the SA who then started killing Communists and burning down synagogues once Hitler won the chancellorship)

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

^ Yes, this is what actual violence and terrorism looks like.

(Expropriating some cars is not even close.)

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

FWIW, the Vegas shooter did not have a manifesto and I don't remember seeing any evidence that he was a white nationalist.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Thats crazy work. There was no motive determined bc he was just some psycho gambler with a gun obsession. Who does that sound like? A right winger.

Don't ask me, go look at the FBI's own statistics (if they still exist) on domestic terrorism and something insane like 90% of the violent offenses are committed by right wing terrorists. The murders, bombings, and assaults are all overwhelmingly right wing.

The conversation at hand is that terrorism is committed by conservatives who don't care about the lives of people they don't view as people. My bad, I forgot that one terrorist hadn't written a manifesto.

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your general point that right-wing terrorism is ignored by the media. Just wanted to clarify that you said "every one of them had a manifesto" but the Vegas shooter did not. That said, a lot of the details of his life are things I associate with right-wingers: worked for Lockheed, owned rental properties, 2nd amendment, lots of cruises. Like you said, I would describe his motive as "disdain for other people/society" but for some reason that's not considered terrorism.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

Sorry for getting heated, I initially read it as nitpicking but scaled back my reply when I read it a few more times to fully understand what you were saying.

When I wrote the original comment I was just rattling off the most well known events and I honestly didn't remember the Vegas shooter having not disclosed a motive or left clues.

At first it seemed like an attempt to derail the conversation but I went and doubled checked all the reporting to make sure I didn't have it confused. You were right, and I got defensive. I didn't want the heart of the message to get lost in the combing through of each individual culprits motive.

Either way, the dude was a piece of shit, and there's 400 more open neonazis committing violence to pull from the database if we really want to make sure all our t's are crossed and I's dotted.

Thanks for the reply, and for understanding where I was coming from. I did not mean to come off condescending.

[–] Alenalda@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

Remember when the j6 crowd smeared literal shit on the wh walls. They all got a pardon.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Let's be honest here. There is no violence. Expropriation is not violence.

The capitalist denial of a difference between people and things is a major foundation of fascism.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

If you believe the reporting, there have been violent attacks on Tesla dealerships. And even if you are not personally committing a violent act, if you are at a protest when it happens, you'll likely get charged too.

On a side note, don't forget that our justice agencies and far-right militias have been known to send agents provocateur to such events to commit violent crimes to turn peaceful protests violent.

[–] KALDON@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Burning cars because you dislike Musk isn't terrorism.