this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

11970 readers
987 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
 
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (3 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.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

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

[–] MooseyMoose@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Property damage is not violence against civilians.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 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)

[–] MooseyMoose@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month 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.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, I get the argument that you're trying to make, but this is a really shitty time to play devil's advocate.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don't even believe ourselves.

If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?

You're 100% playing devil's advocate and drawing false equivalencies. Trying to sound like what you're saying matters only works when what you're saying... actually matters.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?

No falsehoods like "property damage isn't violence against civilians," when we both know perfectly well it can be.

"False equivalency" seems to be another way of saying that you can't defend your position without illustrating that you define "violence against civilians" based on how much you like the civilians in question.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"False equivalency" seems to be another way of saying that you can't defend your position without illustrating that you define "violence against civilians" based on how much you like the civilians in question.

You've just proven my point for me. You're arguing pedantry in favor of billionaires, literally playing devil's advocate.

Sincerely, fuck off.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not arguing in favor of billionaires. Nowhere in this entire thread, nowhere in this entire site, nowhere I have interacted with anyone over the past 18 months or so, have I suggested that terrorizing president musk is the wrong thing to do.

I just think we should call a spade a spade.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on...

In the very strict sense, yes - violence can be committed upon things. The definition doesn't specify ownership, simply people and things. I'm sorry, I should not have been hostile in any way. I have an edge to me when I'm speaking to anyone that I suspect is being disingenuous.

That being said, I still don't think you understand that you may not say it - but the way you tried to deliver your message really convinced me that your subtext was humanizing billionaires that are actively dehumanizing millions of people. That is something I will not accept, in any capacity. Calling a spade a spade is one thing, I can agree with you on that. Unfortunately this is a lot more complicated than a spade, and telling people they're committing harm to billionaires and expecting them to give a shit is a really hot take.

Edit: I conflated two separate conversations.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago

It's a touchy subject, and I am not great at the human part of conversation. No offence taken.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 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.

[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 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.

[–] LoveSausage@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] SaltSong@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Charapaso@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.

So taken to the "logical" extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it's a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.

This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?

[–] alanjaow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Rick: "You know, Mr. President, the more you use that word, the less impact it has. At this point, it's like a terrorist is just a guy you don't like."

Pres: "Shut up, you terrorist!"

This is from memory, so isn't gonna be fully accurate. Ah well.

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

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.

[–] mrbeano@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago
[–] polycrome@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Has anyone else heard that people are trying to return their new Teslas and Cybertrucks because they are apparently infested with bedbugs?! I guess they are in the factories and dealerships and have just been crawling into the cars at night?

It wouldn't surpise me if Elmo and the news are trying to keep a tight lid on it so people won't find out, and Conspiracy nuts are saying that Tesla is torching their own Cybertrucks in the dealership lots to contain the spread.

I didnt belive it at first but a friend of mine took a Lyft in a Tesla the other night and started to feel itchy but the back seat was dark and she was on her phone. While she was getting out, she noticed a bunch of tiny spots on her dress and they were bedbugs!

Naturally she freaked the fuck out and the driver apologized profusely begging her not to give him a bad review before speeding off.

She refused to go into her apartment afterward and spent a few hours in the laundry room practically naked running her clothes in the dryer! Apparently high heat is the only Way to get rid of them?

She's still traumatized and insists she still feels them crawling on her even though an exterminator with a bedbug sniffing dog assured her the apartment was clear.

Has anyone else heard about this? It's so messed up, considering they're such expensive cars!