olivecrest

joined 10 months ago
[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I did this more when I lived on the east coast and could hop on a bus - but it’s wicked expensive to fly and get a hotel. 😛 I have done it, and would be willing to again - I just can’t afford it regularly.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I went to the one in Portland. It was such good energy- it invigorates everyone present. It gives us energy to do other things as well.

The fact that Trump doesn’t care about Oregon doesn’t mean that “doing nothing” is a better option. Don’t discourage people from taking action. If we are gathering and talking to each other we’re more likely to find and join in other efforts.

Speaking of which - what is it that you would suggest the good people of Oregon be doing to make a difference?

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the bus / area.

There is real time bus tracking now in most places so you can see when things will arrive = WAY better for dealing with traffic (note traffic is a thing for cars as well)

I’m in Portland OR and of course a bus going through a bad area is more likely to have people who are “not ok” (addicts) but the vast majority of our busses are clean and climate controlled and filled with perfectly lovely friendly people.

And risk assessment is based on what is likely. My aunt smoked her whole life and never got lung cancer so my “personal experience” is that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. You see what I’m saying?

Cars are more dangerous than busses. Period. You might not like them for any number of perfectly valid reasons, and a specific bus in a specific area might be more dangerous - but the point of the post is that personal preference and accurate risk assessment are not the same thing.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

American, but here for the same reason.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

53 checking in 🙂

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

And I would encourage avoiding collateral damage whenever possible.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Or maybe activist can focus on causing damage to directly to Musk. Like maybe we should all always try to avoid collateral damage when we can.

Not that hard to do.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Agree: Musk is the one hurting Tesla owners

Agree: US Government doesn’t care about collateral damage

I just would encourage folks who want to hurt Musk to focus on action that hurts Musk. Causing collateral damage is not fair or helpful - best to avoid it whenever possible.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

At this point they’d get almost nothing for it - certainly not enough to buy a replacement car.

I’m just saying it helps to carefully target the people you actually are trying to hurt. It doesn’t help a movement if they start hurting bystanders.

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What if a person bought a Tesla 10 years ago (before folks knew what an asshole Musk was) to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Do you think that person deserves to have their car vandalized?

[–] olivecrest@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I am 100% in support of boycotting Tesla.

Just if someone bought a Tesla as their personal vehicle 10 years ago because they wanted an environmentally friendly car - before we knew what an asshole Musk was - I don’t think they deserve to have their personal property damaged/destroyed.

view more: next ›