this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
276 points (99.6% liked)
World News
34538 readers
768 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So it's fine to destroy insured private property? It's not like that's zero cost for the owner of the car
I never claimed it to be fine, to be clear, but again from a purely objective standpoint it seems like a pretty small cost to pay to contribute to the erosion of power a fascist, racist, hateful, and truly dangerous borderline hegemon wields. Perhaps I'm limited in perspective, but at first glance I see 2 main outcomes assuming you're siding with the vandals: -The Tesla owner disagrees with Elon and was able to claim insurance on the car they'd likely otherwise take a bath on if they tried to sell (especially in Germany) and presumably wanted to get rid of: win-win. -The Tesla owner agrees with Elon and is an enemy of the vandal, which I'm sure they'd consider a win-win (damaging the market image of Tesla, harming an enemy)
To clarify once more, I am not saying I agree with or support the efforts of arsonists targeting regular people, but it seems like there's asymmetric cost on the side of Tesla assuming properly insured/financially positioned owners so what they're doing makes sense overall, and is likely effective. Let's be real, Teslas are positioned as luxury vehicles; these aren't people scraping buy that are being harmed.