Cybertruck Owners Are Asking Congressional Reps To Protect Them From People Who Don’t Like Cybertruck Owners
from the you-knew-what-you-were-getting-into dept
There are many reasons a person might feel compelled to purchase a Tesla Cybertruck. Most of those reasons are tied to Elon Musk himself. If you like Elon Musk and think he’s a pretty cool dude, despite his mawkish behavior, mindless DOGE-based destruction, occasional Nazi salutes, ruining of Twitter, and his desperate courting of white nationalists, then you’ll probably buy a Cybertruck.
The vehicle is its own statement: one that says you support the things Musk supports because you’re willing to pay this guy a large sum of money in exchange for a rolling eyesore. Most Cybertruck owners bought these to make that exact statement — to throw aggressively-angled middle fingers to Musk haters, Trump haters, and pretty much anyone else who happens to be a little further left on the political spectrum.
Nothing about this is subtle. The Cybertruck certainly isn’t, and neither are the people vociferously defending their purchases, even after being dicked around by endless delivery delays and further fucked by the multiple problems they’re discovering the more they drive these vehicles. It’s “fuck your feelings” on four wheels, a Nazi car produced by the man running ExTwitter’s Nazi bar.
The backlash has been brewing for a while. The Cybertruck has been mocked since the first mock-up was shown to the public. Now that Musk has been elevated to the position of co-president in the Musk/Trump Administration, the backlash has increased steadily, with no apparent end in sight.
This has resulted in protests outside of Tesla dealerships, insults hurled at Cybertruck owners, and a plethora of vandalism, ranging from spray-painted penises to vehicles being set on fire in dealer lots. Some of this is just the price one pays for purchasing a car now synonymous with assholery. Some of this is clearly illegal and there are plenty of laws on the books capable of addressing those acts. On top of that, every Cybertruck contains tons of sensors and cameras that should make it easy to identify assailants or, at the very least, provide plenty of evidence to buttress insurance claims.
But that’s not enough. A private Facebook Cybertruck owners’ group wants more: protection from the federal government for a small subclass of vehicle owners who all happen to own the same vehicle. Ketan Joshi managed to archive a particularly whiny post from a member of the group who actually wrote his congressperson to ask for the government to step in and… I don’t know… turn Cybertruck owners into a new “protected class” or something.
Subject: Addressing Harassment and Violence Against Tesla Owners
Dear Congressman Garamendi,
I am writing to seek your assistance in addressing the growing harassment, hostility, and violence directed toward Tesla owners across California and the United States. You may be aware of the increasing incidents involving vandalism, road rage, and targeted aggression toward individuals simply because they own and drive a Tesla. As both a concerned citizen and a 24-year retired military veteran, I find it deeply troubling that owning an American-made vehicle has made me—and many others—a target for unjustified hostility.
I have personally experienced multiple alarming incidents. On one occasion, while driving on I-80, another driver deliberately attempted to run me off the road. In another unsettling encounter, while washing my car in my own driveway, a stranger drove up, hurled insults at me, and then left while running stops signs. Reviewing my HOA security footage, I confirmed that this individual had never been in my neighborhood before, making it clear that I was specifically targeted.
Beyond my personal experiences, I am a member of several Tesla owner forums where widespread reports of similar attacks are being shared. Owners are facing physical threats, vandalism, and intimidation simply because of their vehicle choice. Reports in the media highlight incidents of Tesla charging stations being burned, Tesla service centers being vandalized, and Tesla vehicles being spray-painted or otherwise damaged. Unfortunately, law enforcement often has limited ability to hold perpetrators accountable.
This is not just an issue of property damage—it is an issue of safety and targeted aggression. I urge you to consider legislative action that would increase penalties for these acts, potentially classifying them as hate crimes or enhancing legal consequences for individuals who engage in such behavior. No one should be harassed, threatened, or harmed based on the car they drive.
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter. I appreciate your leadership and look forward to any efforts you can make to address this growing concern. Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information or wish to discuss this issue further.
Yes, it’s inadvertently hilarious, which is usually the best kind of hilarious. I especially like the fact that this “24-year veteran” thinks owners of American-made vehicles shouldn’t have to deal with this sort of thing, implying it might be a little more acceptable if the harassment targeted people driving foreign-made vehicles. Given Musk’s partnership with Donald Trump and Trump’s antipathy towards both Canada and Mexico, it might bother this easily troubled vet that about 25% of the truck’s components come from Mexico and another chunk come from Canada. Yes, the vehicle is 90% “American,” but only if you include the other parts of North America.
But the best part is the request that harassment targeting Cybertruck owners be classified as a “hate crime” with enhanced sentences for criminal acts. But here’s the thing about “hate crime” laws: they deal with historically marginalized groups with immutable characteristics. A Cybertruck owner can simply get rid of the truck if it’s that much of a problem for them. And there’s definitely no history of marginalization because… well, there’s just not really any history at all.
On top of that, it’s extremely asinine to make the case that being able to secure an extremely expensive, boldly-styled statement on wheels from the most Extremely Online man in the world is somehow a characteristic that should result in more government protection for you and your clique, when the rest of the world is more than happy to buy cars that don’t look like rolling dumpsters that come from a company run by a guy who hangs out with bigots, sociopaths, and conspiracy theorists.
Here’s where it gets really fun: by pleading with congressional reps to provide Cybertruck owners with extra protections, this tight-knit group of people with more money than common sense has only ensured the mockery and backlash will increase now that it’s been shown it’s having the effect it’s intended to.
Filed Under: cybertruck, elon musk, hate crimes, hate speech, nazi bar, protected class
Companies: tesla
Comments on “Cybertruck Owners Are Asking Congressional Reps To Protect Them From People Who Don’t Like Cybertruck Owners”
DEI but for ugly trucks
You’ve got it wrong, this is not vandalism but a sign of respect for Musk since it’s certainly the best portrait of him. And a swastika may be too vulgar.
Certainly that Tesla owners are “free-speech absolutists” except with their car.
I can begrudge someone who bought a Tesla before Elon decided to become a spotlight-seeking right-wing asshole. They didn’t know Elon was going to become what he is right now.
But the Cybertruck? Nah, miss me with that whining. Anyone who bought a Cybertruck knew full well what Elon was before they got that abomination of a car in their driveway. That besides, Elon recently did an interview where he called empathy “a weakness”. Anyone looking for empathy after having bought a Cybertruck shouldn’t get any. They made their decision; they should suffer the consequences thereof.
(Obviously, I don’t wish actual harm on anyone who owns a Tesla vehicle, Cybertruck or otherwise. But if their car gets egged or vandalized with dickbutt graffiti? I’ll be laughing my ass off because fuck ’em.)
Re:
Did you mean “can’t” or “forgive”?
Soy Right strikes again
Remember when we – collectively, as a society – decided that Prius owners were all too slow, too moronic, and too liberal? Hippies on wheels, etc.
From my memory, those Prius people never sued.
These right wingers sure are whiny. They ride in their big stupid trucks that they need “widdle baby wadders” to climb up into while demanding that we respect them.
Fuck em’. That truck is a four-wheeled billboard of stupidity and assholery. These whiny fucks had the capital to buy an 80,000$ truck that can neither tow nor go off-road nor store anything remotely large in it’s tail. They bought this vehicle to demonstrate that they are assholes and when people treat them like assholes they stomp their feet.
I wish them luck with their baby-mamas, their third marriages, and navigating their relationship with their “participation trophy” wives.
I think Max Read was onto something when he talked about this generation of conservatives being the “soy right”. Or to put it briefly, men who feel they deserve respect without doing literally a single thing to earn said respect.
Re:
Were Priuses being set on fire by their detractors, though? If that happened I don’t remember it.
Did Tesla owners? Sounds like one guy wrote a letter to his congressman. The horror!
Re: Re:
Thanks for imputing horror where there is none. Just pointing out this guy and his ilk are whiney dicks.
Like you.
Re: Re:
I would be willing to bet that the number of Priuses that have been set on fire is larger than the total number of cybertrucks Elon has ever produced.
Large numbers are wacky like that.
Re:
Also the Cybertruck is less truck then a bloody El Camino.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Political Scolds
This is the new iteration of eco terrorism: targeted attacks against particular vehicle owners simply because the attackers disagree with the politics of the manufacturer. This is how we know that leftists are the modern day fascists.
Re:
“Eco terrorism”?!? Why are you using words you don’t actually understand Koby? Do you think you sound smarter and more believable? You can’t just string a bunch of right-wing buzzwords together thinking it means something, because it never does.
You have publicly declared your stupidity and willingness to excuse the inexcusable so why don’t you just fuck off with your lies and drug-induced fantasies. You can come back when you are start behaving like a rational adult that can say something fact-based instead of the childishly snowflake and butthurt diatribe that has been your usual fare for the last years.
Re:
Koby: “The actual fascists doing fascism in the executive branch aren’t real fascists™, but a minority of people using vandalism as a form of protest as opposed to committing personal violence against or murdering their political opponents not only represent everyone I disagree with, but it also makes them all fascists!”
I’d ask you to define the word fascist but we know that to you it just means “person I don’t like.”
Re:
Tell me, Koby: Which political party…
Go ahead, Koby. Tell me which one, singular, well-known political party in the United States fits all the items on that list without exception. I’ll wait.
Re: Re:
Koby’s answer: Democrats, of course.
Actual answer: Republiturds.
Purchase better
The shitbox isn’t safe.
Protected Class? Nah.
Okay, so I am…
1. a transgender woman
2. a Jew
3. on the autistic spectrum
Those three facts alone make me a target for murder by many people, including the current régime in the white house. Once I decided on HRT, that was it. There was no going back. It was irreversible. (It also made me a lot happier!) If I didn’t live in a place where diversity is a virtue like in NYC, I could be killed for being who I am, including immutable characteristics like being a Jew or being on the autistic spectrum.
Owning a cybertruck, by contrast, is not irreversible. Cybertrucks can be sold. Besides, Politics is a mindset, not an immutable part of one’s identity. For instance, there’s a reason the left is okay with physically harming Nazis: because Nazis by definition cause massive damage (and even death) to people who are different in benign ways than privileged people. Also, you can be a good person if you’re of a different protected class, such as race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, or gender. You can’t be a good person if you have shitty politics.
Re:
Is the current White House regime a bunch of good people with your best wishes at heart? No. Is the current White House regim out to murder everyone in those categories or you specifically? No, and you know it very well or you wouldn’t be posting such things in a public forum, especially using your real name.
Also. Are you quite sure, at this juncture, that you want to imply political violence is OK so long as it’s against people who hold the wrong views? Is that really the norm you want to establish right now?
Re: Re:
- Idiot German AC, 1928
Re: Re: Re:
In 1928 that person would have been right; Hitler wouldn’t come into power for another 5 years or so. The Nazis had like 12 seats out of 491 in the Reichstag in the 1928 election.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Nazis were still an impending crisis in 1928. Pretending otherwise would have been, in no way, “right.”
Re: Re: Re:3
FYI, the Third Reich didn’t begin until 1933, so AC is correct and not pretending anything.
Re: Re:
Consider the following:
You seem to forget that death camps weren’t the starting point of the Nazi genocide. They were the endgame of a program of hatred and villification that started with the Nazis convincing otherwise good German people to scapegoat a Repugnant Cultural Other (i.e., Jews) for all of Germany’s problems.
Re: Re:
The right wing is already engaged in political violence. The political violence is already here. Fucking up your ugly truck isn’t violence. Fucking up the Nazi inside would be violence, and even though it would be entirely warranted, that’s not what’s happening.
Re: Re: Re:
This is both hilarious and sad.
We were told during the BLM “Summer of Love” that “silence is violence”. Merely declining to give an opinion was decreed to be a violent act.
But now we have that same crowd telling us that lighting a car on fire that doesn’t belong to you is NOT violence.
So to sum up, not telling them your opinion when they demand it is a violent act which justifies retaliation, but if they want to immolate your car because they don’t like the guy who made it, that’s not violence and how dare you say it is.
Bunch of moronic clowns.
Re: Re: Re:2
You’re responding to a anonymous commenter. You don’t have an evidence that this person ever said that silence is violence or that they are a part of a crowd that said so and they agreed with it.
You’re assigning people to groups and attributing positions and hypocrisy to them entirely based on speculation and falsely dichotomous thinking. Everyone who disagrees with you and with whom you disagree doesn’t all think exactly the same thing or say exactly the same thing.
This unnuanced approach is completely useless except to point out that you don’t like complex topics.
Even for the people who said “silence is violence” the justification of retaliation was never a tenant. You’re not even good at representing the actual people who said it.
What was that about clowns?
Re: Re: Re:3
And who was renting out the justification of retaliation? Or did you mean ‘tenet‘?
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, I meant tenet. Everything I said must be wrong because I spelled a word wrong.
Re: Re: Re:
True. Actions like that are classed as vandalism, whereas violence is against the person.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Why all this focus on immutability? Not all classes protected under law are immutable.
Religion, for example, is hardly immutable. People change religions all the time, yet religion is a protected class.
And, of course, the gender identity movement tells us that gender isn’t immutable, either: One’s gender can change back and forth at one’s whim. Yet gender is a protected class in statutes around the nation.
Re: Re:
Thanks for telling us you don’t know anything about how gender identity actually works, I guess. Transphobe.
Re: Re: Re:
Neither do you, apparently.
Oh, no! I’ve been called a name by some rando on the internet. How ever will I go on?
Eh. Attacking someone for political reasons is also a crime in some areas. And these attacks, with this timing, are almost certainly for political reasons. I’m not a fan of hate crime laws in general, but this isn’t quite as ridiculous as it may appear.
Re:
a crime “in some areas.” Please point out where on a map of the United States — the place where this is actually happening.
Even if you’re right (and you’re not), point out anywhere in the world where owning a certain vehicle grants you extra protection from people who don’t like your vehicle.
Re: Re:
If you insist. I’m pretty sure the following places are in the United States:
West Virginia. (§61-6-21)
https://code.wvlegislature.gov/61-6-21/
Iowa. (IA Code § 729A.2)
https://law.justia.com/codes/iowa/2013/titlexvi/subtitle1/chapter729a/729a-2
Washington DC. (D.C. Code § 22-3701 and 22-3703)
Delaware protects First Amendment activity rather than political affiliation directly, but it probably counts. (11 DE Code § 1304)
California, Louisiana, and South Carolina are left as an exercise for the reader.
No, you’re the one who’s wrong. Laws against “attacking someone for political reasons”, which was my claim, exist.
Come on. I said “these attacks, with this timing, are almost certainly for political reasons.” Any attacks on cybertrucks right now are not about the truck. They’re about the insane things Musk and Trump are doing. Are you seriously disagreeing with that?
Re: Re: Re:
My apologies. You’re right and I’m wrong. I’m not aware of any instances of these laws being enforced in this way, but it’s true: at least two states have added this to their hate crime statutes. According to the DOJ, five states have laws like this on the books, but it only appears to be these two states that have added sentence enhancements for attacks based on political alignment.
On the other hand, the people petitioning their Congressional reps aren’t asking for their political views to be protected under hate crime statutes, they’re asking for “Cybertruck owner” to be added to these laws.
Of course, it’s about politics. But the owners of these cars will need to be honest about why they’ve purchased them if they hope to be protected under existing law because no one — not even in this insane political environment — could possibly hope to pass a bill that adds owners of a single model of vehicle (owners of other Tesla models aren’t complaining) to the list of people with protected status under hate crime laws.
Re: Re: Re:2
And I’ll totally agree that “cybertruck owner” should not be a separate protected class. “Isn’t quite as ridiculous as it may appear” was not an endorsement.
If I were to play devil’s advocate, though, I would note that certain hair styles also qualify under that Delaware law. It’s because they’re traditionally associated with certain races, but directly making a particular hair style a protected class because it’s associated with a particular race would seem to be the same general logic as making a particular truck a protected class because it’s associated with a particular political affiliation.
(Although, I must admit that the cybertrucks might be currently associated with certain political affiliations but aren’t really traditionally associated; they haven’t been around long enough to be “traditionally” anything. So maybe that’s the difference.)
Re:
Attacking a person or property is a crime.
We know this because these things are already against the law.
FTFY
Re:
To my knowledge, no hate crime law in the United States treats political affiliation as a protected class for which a hate crime enhancement can be added to a criminal charge.
And even if there were such a law in place, owning a Tesla vehicle—yes, even a Cybertruck—is as much of an apolitical act as buying a Toyota or a Hyundai. Some people may affiliate that purchase with politics, as is their right. But the act of buying a car isn’t inherently political.
And all that besides: The range of Tesla owners run the gamut in terms of sexual/gender identity, age, race/ethnicity, religion, and even political affiliation. What makes you believe “Tesla owners” should be listed alongside atheists and queer people in hate crime/anti-discrimination laws?
Re: Re:
There are some. See my reply to Tim, when it appears.
True. But I believe they are being targeted because the person is perceived to have certain political beliefs. And according to the DC law I cited to Tim:
We can agree that these people mostly aren’t just mad about the truck design, right? They’re angry over what Musk and Trump are doing, and that’s why they’re attacking the trucks?
I said it “isn’t quite as ridiculous as it may appear”, not that I support it.
Re: Re: Re:
Someone could target Tesla owners for harassment because of Elon’s specific political beliefs. Can’t deny otherwise or I’d be an asshole. But knowing it ain’t the same as proving it. Without hard proof that the harassment is because of Elon’s politics and not because thin-skinned Tesla owners are easy targets for meatspace trolling, any attempt to hang a hate crime enhancement on a crime committed against a Tesla owner will likely not go well for prosecutors.
Sure seems like you support it, given that you’re arguing in favor of it. I know that I don’t tend to argue in favor of positions I don’t support.
Re: Re: Re:2
Sure, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt might be hard. I assume that not all instances of people being attacked because of race are provable either, assuming the person isn’t yelling racial epitaphs or something while doing it. My point that it’s a crime in some areas remains unchanged, of course.
Re: Re: Re:2
TIL: Pointing out that specific statutes exist is the same as supporting them. So if I point out that bigotry seems to be growing on the left as well as the right, does that mean I support bigotry?
Re: Re:
Said Donald Trump to no one ever as he purchased a Tesla to show political support for his co-President Elmo.
Make people stop flipping me off when I drive around in my Deplorian!
Make people stop putting mean notes on my Swasticar!
Umm we have libraries getting bomb threats & get no extra help or protection… but someone flips you the bird and you need a SWAT team dispatched?
I’ve had people claiming I molest children & I haven’t melted down this bad.
They flipped you the bird, please fuck right off.
Who knew Koby drove a cybertruck?
‘I bought a grotesque status symbol to proudly show the libs exactly who I am, also please stop the libs judging me for who I am.’
No wonder they were designed to look like an industrial freezer on wheels, given how they’re filled with snowflakes.
Re:
I thought they looked like dumpsters because they’re filled with garbage.
Re: Re:
It can be both things.
C******uck
Impossible for me to believe that someone so childishly obsessed with sexualized “jokes” chose this name for his flagship vehicle by accident. I can only assume he’s trolling his own fanboys.
Rolling Coal!
Friend called a couple days ago from southern Oregon. Said he saw 2 or 3 jacked up trucks rolling coal (spewing voluminous black smoke), chasing and harassing a Cybertruck, tried to force it off the road.
So yeah it’s real!
So glad
If he thinks that he’s being unfairly harassed for driving a CyberTruck, he should attempt driving “not-white” sometime. Or maybe not. We don’t need more blackface.
Cyber Trucks don’t have blinkers. They have virtue signals.
F 'em
1792.
That’s not true. Hate crimes can be done for any reason, like rooting for the Los Angeles Clippers, wearing Crocs with docks, and/or eating pinespple pizza.
Re:
You laugh, but in Delaware it can be for any First Amendment protected activity. If someone attacks you for rooting for the Clippers… that literally would be a hate crime. 11 DE Code § 1304.
Re: Re:
And I guarantee that the lawyer(s) for someone convicted under such a hate crime enhancement would immediately appeal that enhancement. I mean, if someone being a Clippers fan is enough to make them a legally protected class of people in Delaware, why the fuck do we even need hate crime enhancements.
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose the defense could argue that it was not the intent of the legislature to criminalize such a motivation, but it’s usually an uphill battle to argue against the plain text of the statute. I’ll admit I am totally ignorant of Delaware case law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You can’t bull LGBT+ and other minorities: but now you can bull Cybertack (and their owners). Feeling secure?
Re:
lolwut?
Re:
We have an entire political party with a federal trifecta that lives to bully LGBT+ and other minorities. I want what you’re smoking.
What's that saying they love to say, 'Fuck your feelings'?
Well, I supposed I can’t say I’m surprised that people who idolize a pathetic man-child who throws tantrums whenever someone is mean to him also have the same level of emotional maturity and inability to handle mockery.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Nah dude, what you did is out yourself as anti-oil, and you got what was coming to you for your anti-American hate.
Re:
Stupid ass.
Re:
Sure, buddy. It’s anti-American hate to dislike an unelected un-American tech bro destroying the American government, starving kids by defunding food programs, hurting cancer victims by defunding cancer research on the basis that they think transgenic means transgender, etc.
You’re outing yourself as anti-education because you’ve clearly embraced ignorance as a point of pride.