this is meant to be read without the emotional loading to the words that we’ve been conditioned with: ie X is implicitly bad… these are just words, whose meaning has more depth than what they actually define

terrorism is

the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims

violence is

an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm

arson is violence

and this particular act of violence is intended to achieve political or ideological aims (musk is a political figure albeit not an official government employee, and this is in response to his public political acts)

now, i’d argue it’s not “against non-combatants”, but perhaps it is? is destruction of a persons property constitute violence against them? it’s at least psychological - trying to scare/influence for sure

let’s not kid ourselves though: it is what it is… it’s just ridiculous that this is what they pursue while pardoning jan 6 offenders… the issue isn’t that they’re labelling this domestic terrorism. the issue is that it’s singled out because fElon asked daddy dictator

Arson, its just arson.

So are we suddenly pretending Musk isn’t a de facto government leader who might be manipulated by this? (Terrible wording, but y’all get my gist. I’m going hiking now.)

If you want to abstract it enough, hurting Tesla hurts musk, who unfortunately is the government.