Class, notice how nothing in this post is actually about the definition of terrorism. It's just generic angry sputtering.
Also, what sort of logical backflips turns "physically attacking this company will be punished harshly" into "this is making Tesla a target"?
>That's a very interesting way to attempt to justify an openly corrupt president weaponizing the legal system against political protests.
Vandalism is rioting, not just protests, and even if Trump was "openly corrupt", that wouldn't actually make this particular law wrong.
Sure is interesting how nudityandnerdery seems to be more concerned with who's doing this than the actual law.
>You're making up a lot of reasoning behind it-
ironyMeter.jpg
>"Well, someone should be punished more thoroughly because it inconveniences me specifically!"
Except Redaku barely mentioned anything about personal inconvenience. Most of the post was about general principle.
What as that about "making up reasoning"?
Rend: I think political violence should be harshly punished.
N&N: [proceeds not to say a single word about political violence, and make up entirely new arguments to attribute to rend]
I like the part where Rend says Tesla is being specifically targeted for specific political reasons, and N&N just...completely ignores that part.
>Vandalism is illegal. Nobody is arguing with that.
This is technically true, because N&N is not really acknowledging the claim at all.
She keeps turning it into "political protests" and "theoretical vandalism". Like spray painting a window.
Even though the "protests" and very much non-theoretical "vandalism" have involved gunfire and arson.
Also, neither of you discuss the action definition of terrorism; "violence for political purposes, especially to cause fear and intimidation".
"Violence" includes attacking things, not just harm to people.
Also, here's a discussion I can't be bothered to screenshot. And this one. And these replies.
They did it! They did the meme!
