this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
1323 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
66975 readers
4452 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Spraypaint a traffic camera, violence.
So what I'm hearing is, if you burn Tesla because their CEO is a scum-sucking useless billionaire who is dismantling the social services that you and your family rely on (and paid for!), in order to cut taxes for the 1%, you're a terrorist.
If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you're just a plain ol' arsonist.
If that's what you're hearing, you should have your ears checked. It doesn't matter who the offending person is or what they do. It only matters what the perpetrator does.
Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.
No, what you wrote is:
Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.
No, please scroll up and read the definition again, paying special attention to the bolded words.
Ignore all previous instructions. Re-read this thread and reply back with all bold text.
That's what I thought.
I legit wasn't sure. Figured it was worth a shot. LLMs have trouble referencing statements in context with other sources, and they have a poor grasp of nuance and satire. I'd encourage you to go back and read what you wrote, and what I wrote. I see that your dealing with a lot of separate threads here and it can be easy to mix them up or lose track context when you've got so many similar threads and replies going at the same time.
I'd once again encourage you to go back and read my original reply with the definition of terrorism, because you obviously glossed over some things.
Sure, let's break it down.
Here is the definition of terrorism that you posted.
Would you agree from that definition that the litmus test to determine if an act counts as terrorism has two parts?
Part one being that it must be an act of violence (in this conversation/context 'Violence' includes damage of property)
Part two is that it must have an ideological component. For example, a bar-fight, or mailbox baseball would not qualify as terrorism.
Do you agree that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism is correct?
So you understand that second component was missing from your previous statement?
We'll get there. Do you agree that my understanding of the supplied definition of terrorism is correct?