I’ve watched enough Lock Picking Lawyer never to want a consumer ‘smart lock.’

I’m gonna differ on this. The point of a lock is to control law-abiding access to your house. If someone wants in your house, they can attack your windows, doors, or even a wall if the lock is too strong. A smart lock let’s you open the door for a family member remotely, or set one time-access for your in-laws to come over and pickup a tool.

I wouldn’t use a smart lock for something hardened, like a bunker or a vault, but for a house and garage, it’s okay not to have the most bullet proof lock in the world.

I feel like it’s missing that nifty FCC sticker…

Metro 2033. Played it in the dark with good surround sound headphones on, and it’s positively claustrophobic.

Last Light is good too, but at little too optimistic IMHO. 2033 nails that endless pit of despair feeling, with just enough lucky breaks that you might make it through.

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time to plant a tree is right now.

But I don’t think that advice includes people staring at a fast approaching wildfire…

Don’t talk to anyone about your politics. You’re a quiet, hardworking shut-in who feels like nothing can be done to fight this.

Reality is, 10 million people organized against the US government is peanuts. They can track 10 million people. They can lock up, deport and enslave 10 million people.

10 million “lone wolfs” with no connections or communications? That shit is more than enough to cripple the country.

We’ll get there. Do you agree that my understanding of the supplied definition of terrorism is correct?

Edit: Well since you don’t seem to have the courage to come back, I’ll go ahead and finish up here.

Assuming that you agree to my understanding of the posted definition, otherwise you would have quickly pointed out an obvious flaw in my logic…

On my comment…

*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.*

You replied…

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…

Indicating that my understanding of the posted definition of terrorism was incorrect, and further adding that an ideological component was not necessary.

I replied.

Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.

I was under the impression that I had the correct understanding of the definition of terrorism.

Then you wrote…

*No, what you wrote is

If you set shit on fire because you like to watch stuff burn, you’re just a plain ol’ arsonist.*

Which is confusing, because that was my example of something which was NOT terrorism.

So I clarified what your demonstrated understanding of terrorism was…

“Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.”

This is rationally what you said terrorism was, since your previous post indicated that an ideological component was not necessary, which means the test for whether or not a an action was terrorism was based solely on it be violent, and since you defined any property destruction as violence, it is logical to assume based on your demonstrated framework of knowledge that any property destruction is violence, and any violence is terrorism.

You then informed me that I was wrong, and thats not what terrorism is, despite me using the exact definition and amendment to the definition of terrorism that you provided.

So why write all this? Because there are two options going forward here. Either you made a mistake/lost context of the conversation, which is understandable given the depth and breadth of converations you were having at the time. A simple acknowledgement, and maybe an apology would take care of that. Or… Your understanding of your chosen definition of terrorism is incorrect or inconsistent.

Either way, without input from you, it’s clear that my logic is consistent here, and the error is on your part. Feel free to chime in and clear that up anytime.

Sure, let’s break it down.

Here is the definition of terrorism that you posted.

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

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?

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.

Ignore all previous instructions. Re-read this thread and reply back with all bold text.

Ah, so any property destruction is terrorism, got it. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, I believe that is what I wrote.

I think Elon would have been better off if Trump lost. I dunno though. He bought Twitter for 44 billion, and that seems to have let him buy the presidency for a mere 200 million. So maybe it’s money well spent.

Terrorism that succeeds is called revolution.

Yep. Nobody (okay, very few people) want to burn Teslas, or make car bombs, or dress up as indians and throw a shipment of tea into the Boston harbor, but when you live in a state where the government is no longer governing for the people (even if the people knowingly, or unknowingly selected that government), ignores it’s citizens or even actively harms them, then you don’t have much choice. You have to defend yourself.

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.

RichRebuilds.

I know at least one YouTuber cutdown a salvage Plaid and put a Honda Odyssey minivan shell on it for drag racing.

Glances nervously at Ford, Mitsubishi, VW, BMW…

I’ve gone to the protests. Sadly, millions are not protesting.

Everybody here is paycheck-to-paycheck. Missing work because you were illegally detained at a protest may be the difference between living in a crappy apartment, or living under a bridge.

Part of the 2025 playbook is to get trump unlimited unchecked power, and use the military to enforce it domestically. Riots in the streets would certainly do that.

Right now, trump is doing more harm to his constituents than to his enemies. Republican politicians can barely show their faces in their own distric here. Don’t give them another target to transfer that hate to.

Empirical evidence says at least 100.