Political picture dump

[Tom62]

Tesla sales were down in Europe by 42%. I think that sends a clear signal that lots of people now dislike Musk. That is their good right, so I approve the boycott. What I don't approve of is the wilfully destruction of Tesla cars and arsonist attacks against Tesla charging stations by leftist activists.

[Dark Lightning]

Yes, the violence is deplorable. As an American I think that Musk has no business in any government position. He and the chump are like little kid bullies, running around kicking things over until someone stands up to them and they cave. Firing people, and the manner in which they are doing it, is actually going to cost the US' citizens much more than any alleged savings.

[billy rubin]

at what point does violence become acceptable?

we maintain militaries because we belive violence is acceptable internationally.

my countrys constitution states that maintaining armed citizens is a requirement of a free state.

various official oaths of office identify potential enemies as both "foreign and domestic."

where is tbe line that must be crossed?

[Asmodean]

at what point does violence become acceptable?

Between sovereign entities, it is the final instance of diplomatic escalation.

Between individuals, generally only in defence of self or other in imminent danger, though some places allow limited violence by parents to children for the purpose of discipline and so on.

we maintain militaries because we belive violence is acceptable internationally.

Not really. We maintain militaries because threat of violence and violence itself are useful tools in getting what we want and deterring others from thusly getting what they want from us - whether it be "acceptable" or not.

my countrys constitution states that maintaining armed citizens is a requirement of a free state.

...To be able to overthrow a government with access to nuclear submarines, and yet you can't even buy a machinegun unless it's converted to semi-auto. At least, that be my general understanding.

various official oaths of office identify potential enemies as both "foreign and domestic."

Yeah. Russia and Ukraine are an example of mutual foreign enemies. A local selling national secrets to the highest bidder or a homegrown political terrorist would be examples of domestic enemies.

where is tbe line that must be crossed?

That's just it though. that line is written in air and flutters with the wind.

[billy rubin]

but it exists and is subject to judgement in interpretation, rather than being something to always avoid.

[Asmodean]

I disagree.

On macro scale, the world often operates on the power of "because I can." Always has, and probably always will.

Is for instance using nuclear weapons in war "crossing the line?" Well, it is crossing a line, which has been crossed before to a degree of success, but even then, whose line? Does the nuker-to-be even see it as such?

On micro scale, we tend to defer the monopoly on force to our extended tribe - be it neighbourhood watch, the local police or whatever centralised agencies may be available in your area code. (For the US, those would be your FBIs, NSAs, ICEs and so forth) The exception being when under attack, you defend. With deadly force, if need be. That exception can also be extended to third party, though your mileage may vary based on that same area code I've mentioned.

So, it's not a line - it's a whole bunch of sometimes-interconnecting, sometimes-aligned, often-conflicting interests. Where I draw my line in case a may not be where you draw yours in case b, may not be where "we" draw "ours" in either case, but "we" may very well draw it there in case c.

Apart from pretty local scale, that's how she goes.

Let me put it in somewhat psychological terms; it is probable that an otherwise sane and intellectually-average serial rapist knows that rape is unacceptable in his culture. Why then is he a serial rapist? It may be a combination of factors like he may think he'll get away with it, acts on impulse every time, just does not care and so forth. Point is, he knows you disapprove, but given half a chance, he'll treat you to some surprise sex with little to no regard for your disapproval. To make a dark thing darker, he may even be one of those who get off on flexing their power - however fleeting - over another person.

Now imagine there are two of them working together in that one regard. Now four. One hundred. Five percent of a nation. Ten percent. Thirty. Now The Rape Party of Kekistan is a political force to be reckoned with. Suddenly they are in power. Now, they can become the disapprovers, and that common line that was claimed to exist is now a completely different animal, complete with broken-in shops and literal dumpster fires.

This is a bit of a far-fetched hypothetical, but do let us remember that "we" got from "slavery is the norm" to "slavery is morally reprehensible" that way.  And from "toss the gay from them cliffs" to "marry them gays in a church." Things change. they evolve. You will not perceive every such change as positive - nor will the chairman of the Serial Rapist Party in my hypothetical.

The lines "we" draw depend on the "we." At the end of the day, all that fully unites us is Sagan's pale blue dot. Stellar geometry is not ideological in its nature. It just is.

[billy rubin]

So, it's not a line - it's a whole bunch of sometimes-interconnecting, sometimes-aligned, often-conflicting interests. Where I draw my line in case a may not be where you draw yours in case b, may not be where "we" draw "ours" in either case, but "we" may very well draw it there in case c.

i think it is possible to simplify the question.

im not concerned about abstract notions of political science or existentialism. rather, i have read here that property destruction should be avoided, and i am interested in deciding how i feel about it. specifically, we have an unelected oligarch, elon musk, who at the price of some US$350 million, has purchased a seat of power in my government-- unelected, untouchable, yet empowered to make great changes in my economy and the political future i must live under.

he is unaccountable by any political methods in my country, because he is not a government employee that derives any powers or responsibility from or to the people. he is outside the system, yet he controls it. he derives this great power only from his personal wealth. without the money he receives  from tesla, he is without influence, because it is only his money that buys it.

some people are attacking the business --owned by him, elon-- where his automobiles are being sold. others are attacking the automobiles themselves. the latter are much easier targets, because my government has activated its resources to defend his businesses-- police, the ministry of justice, and soon, probably, military forces. my government has already re-labelled vandalism against his property to be acts of political terror, which merit special classes of punishment. so a tesla dealership has armed police guards, paid for by my taxes, while a tesla automobile in a parking lot is vulnerable.

personally, i do not support torching the tesla automobiles owned by private citizens. but i would encourage them to sell those automobiles as soon as possible, as i also do not support prosecuting the people who destroy them. regarding elon musks company-owned dealerships, i am delighted to see them burn, and the more money he loses by trying to finance his destructive politics with his businesses, the better. he has stepped outside the law in my country, and no longer has a right to demand that it defend him.

so i am noticing that the rules have been changed-- not by me-- and destruction of property is no longer the offence against society that i once thought it was.

by the way, when then the american secret police  start to use AI to scrape the internet for keywords such as those i have just written, i may end up in difficulties. but i am almost 70 years old, and i no longer give a rats ass about holding my tongue.

[Icarus]

Here here Billy.

[Tank]

Well said Billy.