I never claimed it to be fine, to be clear, but again from a purely objective standpoint it seems like a pretty small cost to pay to contribute to the erosion of power a fascist, racist, hateful, and truly dangerous borderline hegemon wields. Perhaps I’m limited in perspective, but at first glance I see 2 main outcomes assuming you’re siding with the vandals: -The Tesla owner disagrees with Elon and was able to claim insurance on the car they’d likely otherwise take a bath on if they tried to sell (especially in Germany) and presumably wanted to get rid of: win-win. -The Tesla owner agrees with Elon and is an enemy of the vandal, which I’m sure they’d consider a win-win (damaging the market image of Tesla, harming an enemy)

To clarify once more, I am not saying I agree with or support the efforts of arsonists targeting regular people, but it seems like there’s asymmetric cost on the side of Tesla assuming properly insured/financially positioned owners so what they’re doing makes sense overall, and is likely effective. Let’s be real, Teslas are positioned as luxury vehicles; these aren’t people scraping buy that are being harmed.

If you have a car that valuable without comprehensive insurance, you were going to learn a hard lesson one way or the other imo. Something as simply as a bad rain storm can really expensive damage. Also, from an impartial perspective, used cars that attract crime seriously harm sales of other used and even new examples; Hyundai/Kia is an excellent example of this. Tesla has already lost virtually all of its reputation yes, but knowing it might be burned to the ground at any second will have even Elon supporters second guessing a purchase.

national “buy comprehensive” day would be a pretty strong signal to send

paccache -r got me about the same