You cannot be "violent" against inanimate property
Vandalism and violence are two different things!
Joe Rogan: “With Elon Musk, you’re seeing people justify violence and extreme vandalism. You’re seeing people cheering it on and it’s very strange.”
Elon Musk: “My companies make great products that people love and I’ve never physically hurt anyone. So why the hate and violence against me?”
JD Vance: “The people attacking Teslas are trying to send the message that if you support President Trump, they will commit acts of violence to try to intimidate you. Our message to them? Terrorists in this country will be brought to justice.”
Amid this escalating rhetoric it is worth pointing out that there have been no reported acts of actual violence connected with the attacks on Tesla. The FBI has reported incidents of arson, gunfire, and vandalism, but none of this seems to have targeted actual people; for instance, all known incidents have reportedly taken place at night. And in fact, the FBI seems perfectly well aware of this, observing that attackers “may perceive these attacks as victimless property crimes.”
One reason to make this distinction is that the right is likely to insist on legally disproportionate responses to these incidents by conflating violence with vandalism. If protesters start injuring Tesla staff or owners or launching attacks that are likely to do so, that is when it will be legally plausible to pursue remedies commensurate with violent crimes. As of now however nothing justifies that — much less prosecuting these incidents as acts of terrorism. The FBI’s definition is clear: domestic terrorism entails
Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature…
As of now, these incidents have typically just qualified as misdemeanors, and there is no plausible reason to treat them as anything more. (Incidentally, I would encourage any readers interested in protesting to review this page so that you do not do anything that can be lawfully prosecuted as domestic terrorism.)
Legality aside, an even better reason to make the distinction between violence and vandalism is to maintain the distinction between people and property. In a capitalist economy, the ruling class will typically be inclined to commodify workers as “human resources” rather than as fellow humans. And this, of course, only contributes to our inhumane treatement. Elon Musk, for example, is likely to see the human lives he puts at risk with his Teslas as mere numbers on a ledger to be balanced against other costs rather than as sacred lives to be preserved at any cost.
If the right wants to insist on using “violence” to mean something like “attacks on living creatures and inanimate property” that is fine, but they should then propose a new word that we can use to mean what violence once did.
Thanks for reading! My blog is supported entirely by readers like you. To receive new posts and support my work, why not subscribe?
Refer enough friends to this site and you can read paywalled content for free!
And if you liked this post, why not share it?