this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
640 points (98.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

11124 readers
2443 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
640
Can't make this shit up (lemmy.world)
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 36 minutes ago

By far the absolute worst election promise of Trump47 was to give blanket immunity to police for murder, which directly leads to "don't let this extortion turn into a murder, and don't say liberal shit".

Musk recommending to pardon George Floyd cop murderer is a ploy for protests and crackdowns on protests. During Trump45, the Jerusalem capital/embassy was opportunity to murder protesters, and he also amplified George Floyd protests as a re-election ploy to keep suburban moms safe from the uppity negroes.

Musk is intentionally inciting domestic violence through his divisive and hateful recommendation. He'd just prefer the violence be directed at angry negroes than his cars.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago

Terrorism is politically/religiously motivated violence.

So is he trying to say that attacking a (supposedly) independent, non-government owned corporation, which is (supposedly) held and headed by a person who is officially nowhere on any governments payroll, is political?

This is just like with the murder of Brian Thompson, the charges reveal the truth of what they think.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 51 minutes ago

But tilting at windmills is still patriotic.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

"It was at dawn of Abril 25 of 1974, during the parade of Practical Cavalry School, in Santarém, that Salgueiro Maia uttered the famous speech:

'Gentlemen, as everyone knows, there are various modalities of State.
The socialist States,
the capitalist States,
and the state we came to.
Well, in this solemn night, we will end the state we came to!
So, whoever wants to come with me, we go to Lisbon and we will end this.
Whoever is voluntary, go out, form up.
Whoever doesn't want to go out, stay here.'

Every 240 of those man that eard this words, spoken so firmly, so characteristic of Salgueiro Maia, formed up immediately in front of him.

Next they went to Lisbon and marched on the dictatorship."

And with more and more military/citizens joining in through the day, they ended a 41 year old dictatorship that kept Portugal in poverty and ignorence.
The only good things about Salazar (Slytherin....yeah Rowling used his name) was (mostly) keeping Portugal out of the wars (mostly) and dying.

[–] [email protected] 132 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] 48 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 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.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 19 hours ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 26 minutes ago

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The relative risk of trying to do that is such that you are highly likely to injure someone. If no one got hurt in that type of attack, it's by sheer luck.

Also, not a soul thinks people attacking unpurchased vehicles is a threat to escalate to hurting people.

It's a crime, but not everything is 'terrorism'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

What about something different, farther away from civilian population centers being destroyed? Like, I don't know, Mount Rushmore being exploded? Or someone burning down an empty library? Maybe someone gaining access to an airport and throwing a molotov at the turbines of an empty jumbo jet?

These examples are explicitly more severe than damaging Teslas. But only few would argue any of those aren't terrorism, be it perpetrated by anti-imperialist Native Americans (exploding Mount Rushmore), by anti-intellectual fascists (burning down a library) or by environmentalists (molotov @ plane). All of these groups would have political motives which is really all that's needed for damaging property to be terrorism.

Whether terrorism can or cannot ever be justified is a different question. But I'd argue attacking Tesla dealerships through violent means is domestic terrorism - be it shooting them up or setting them on fire.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.

Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That's harm.

Maybe not a lot of harm. But it's harm.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

In the U.K. it’s criminal damage, not sure what the USA exact term will be, but it won’t be terrorism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Still not violence

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

It is if you're using the definition provided by the person I'm replying to.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 44 points 17 hours ago (7 children)

Property damage is not violence against civilians.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

What if I blew up a water tower?

Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Who is the intended audience of that comment that you believe will equate sources of food and water to swasticars?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

He didn't say "swasticars." He said "property." Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.

My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it's just property damage.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 minutes ago

I wonder where you were when that guy showed up and beat Paul Pelosi almost to death with a hammer. Laughing probably, along with most Republicans

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Hahahaha, you went and one-upped your own stupid comment. Yes, clearly any rational person sees vandalizing swasticars to be just as evil as destroying essential infrastructure for human survival or terrorizing innocent people with racial hatred that has historically let to their murders.

You're a fucking idiot cosplaying as an iNTelLecTuAl.

You're also blocked because you're a waste of everyone's time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 minutes ago

Just another Elon stan

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Then your act of vandalism/sabotage would have effects that harms people. Is this so difficult for you to understand? SMH.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's quite easy to understand. But you said "Property damage is not violence against civilians."

Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

What you're missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an "attack"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 18 hours ago

Easy. Just run for president and pardon yourself. Duh.

load more comments
view more: next ›