Cards Against Humanity sued SpaceX yesterday, alleging that Elon Musk’s firm illegally took over a plot of land on the US/Mexico border that the party-game company bought in 2017 in an attempt to stymie then-President Trump’s attempt to build a wall.

“As part of CAH’s 2017 holiday campaign, while Donald Trump was President, CAH created a supporter-funded campaign to take a stand against the building of a Border Wall,” said the lawsuit filed in Cameron County District Court in Texas. Cards Against Humanity says it received $15 donations from 150,000 people and used part of that money to buy “a plot of vacant land in Cameron County based upon CAH’s promise to ‘make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.’”

Cards Against Humanity says it mowed the land “and maintained it in its natural state, marking the edge of the lot with a fence and a ‘No Trespassing’ sign.” But instead of Trump taking over the land, Cards Against Humanity says the parcel was “interfered with and invaded” by Musk’s space company. The lawsuit includes pictures that, according to Cards Against Humanity, show the land when it was first purchased and after SpaceX construction equipment and materials were placed on the land.

  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    147
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Just buying land does what? Show a presence, if they mowed it how often like they claimed it wouldn’t have gotten that bad before noticing. Put an actual fence on it, what they use? Some stakes a twine? I’m having a discussion so we can figure these details out, what are you doing than insulting someone for trying to talk?

    This also is t he first time they failed in their expectations, the hole they dug was a failure, they had to constantly modify their claim because they didn’t realize they rules and regulations regarding making. A safe deep excavation.

    I’m trying to discuss in good faith, the fuck is this? I provided a quote to show my particular issue and described it, what part of my comment is not trying to discuss in good faith? If anything you going straight to insulting someone is the one lacking any sort of civility here.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      130
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Buying land gives them the legal ownership of it, allowing them to stop others using it.

      Why do you assume they need to build something on the land?

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        43
        ·
        2 months ago

        The US federal government could simply file for eminent domain on the land (pay the holder what they (feds) deem fair value) and build the wall CAH planned to disrupt.

        • moody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          54
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Their goal was to make it as difficult as possible. Sure eminent domain was a possibility, but they expected it and I imagine planned to fight it.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            2 months ago

            No I was talking about the base idea of buying land on the border to prevent Trump from building a wall while he was in office.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                22
                ·
                2 months ago

                It isn’t just as your previous comment on if Elon filed for eminent domain wasn’t because that wasn’t the subject that comment was addressing.

                The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used. Which CAH did to prevent a Trump admin from building a border wall. I was pointing out how that their actions in that matter didn’t suit their intended purpose because of the governments ability to seize private land with compensation for public use.

                • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  18
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  And if they had been threatened with eminent domain, I am quite sure they would have followed through with their promise. This was to make it as difficult as possible.

                  I’m not nearly as inventive or funny as those guys but they could have covered every inch in razor wire fifteen feet high, wrapped around rebar and tamped ten feet into the ground every three feet. But I don’t think they would do anything that would hurt someone. They would come up with something more difficult and funnier.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used

                  Right, and Elon is currently using it, not the US government. So your comment about Eminent Domain is a non sequitur.

                  The comment you originally addressed said nothing about the US government.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        101
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That did a good job didn’t it? Plenty of ample evidence that worked eh?

        Did I say they need to build anything on it? How did you get that from my comment?

        • Kecessa
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Why are you complaining about what they did when it’s someone else that illegally used land that they didn’t own?

          If you own a plot of land you’re free to use it by doing fuck all with it, it doesn’t give anyone the right to use it and it doesn’t mean you’re being irresponsible by not doing anything including not putting up a fence, it’s other people’s responsibility to make sure they respect the limit of the property they own.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            80
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Yes that can go on the border, and almost every farmer knows to do this to prevent people like hunters from accidentally using your land.

            You can’t just buy land and expect people to not use it, that’s almost negligence for anyone who spent their money expecting CAH to do this, if anything they’ve opened themselves to be sued by the people who spent the money doing this in the first place.

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              74
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Your thoughts on land ownership are making me chuckle a lil.

              Guess what, there’s actually a government program in some agricultural areas, that pays landowners money to literally do nothing with their land, so it can act as a sanctuary for wildlife. Doing nothing with land is perfectly legal and sometimes even encouraged.

              Now, owning and doing nothing with HOUSES is downright immoral, yet we don’t fine those people either.

              They put up a No Trespassing sign. With Texas castle laws, idk if they even needed to do that and they can literally shoot trespassers on their property.

              • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 months ago

                Man one of these neighborhoods popped up out of nowhere. A bunch of half million dollar homes with barely any yard, 1 floor, 2 bedrooms 2 bathrooms, no HOA yet every single house has the same damn decorations.

                What the absolute fuck is wrong with this country

            • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              72
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Cards Against Humanity says it mowed the land “and maintained it in its natural state, marking the edge of the lot with a fence and a ‘No Trespassing’ sign.”

              /edit: lmao.

    • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Just buying land gives complete legal ownership and stewardship to the owner. They’re not obligated to do shit with it, and they bought it exactly so they could do nothing with it: keep it natural and pristine.

      You seem to weirdly be invested in Cards Against Humanity being in the wrong, with the weird takes. They did exactly what they were expected to do- keep it pristine. What gives you any impression at all there were different expectations? Just flat out wrong.

      Your whole comment reads like one of Musk’s alt accounts trying to rub defense lol. If you expressed any semblance of understanding why and how CAH acquired the land before you began with “this isn’t the first time they failed expectations, why didn’t they build anything?!,” maybe you’d get better replies

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        81
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Just buying land gives complete legal ownership and stewardship to the owner. They’re not obligated to shit with it, and they bought it exactly so they could do nothing with it: keep it natural and pristine.

        Squatters and adverse possession says otherwise… they also didn’t just claim they would keep it natural and pristine, they claimed they would protect it.

        Governments can also force you to sell your land….

        You seem to weirdly be invested in Cards Against Humanity being in the wrong, with the weird takes. They did exactly what they were expected to do- keep it pristine. What gives you any impression at all there were different expectations? Just flat out wrong.

        What? They said they would protect it from billionaires, they failed on that didn’t they? Just like their deep hole they couldn’t do.

        Your whole comment reads like one of Musk’s alt accounts trying to rub defense lol. If you expressed any semblance of understanding why and how CAH acquired the land before you began with “this isn’t the first time they failed expectations, why didn’t they build anything?!,” maybe you’d get better replies

        I do understand how they got the land, why do you claim I don’t?

        They have failed before.

        Where did I say they need to build something? I have gotten better replies, thank you, you’re just a piece of work apparently.

        • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          65
          ·
          2 months ago

          Absolutely bonkers lmao

          Of course imminent domain exists, silly. Yes, the government can force sales. Also squatters can be forcefully evicted through due process by the owner. That’s now what’s happening here. I can’t even begin to understand why it’s relevant.

          Protecting the land means not letting it become part of the failed Wall, and not allowing building/dumping on it. As Elon has dumped his shit in their land, CaH is suing. Thats exactly what protecting the land is, buddy.

          You seem to have a chub for Elon, or a chip against CaH. Not sure which, but you are waaaay off base lol

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          ·
          2 months ago

          Squatters and adverse possession says otherwise

          Adverse possession requires someone to use the land in an exclusive and conspicuous manner for an extended period of time without the owner challenging them on it.

          They are literally challenging SpaceX on it, right now at this very moment. That’s the entire point.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      2 months ago

      If I buy land, it’s my land. My use (or lack thereof) is of no consequence to anybody; in other words, if I buy land, you can’t use it without my permission.

      CAH is not in the wrong here; SpaceX is. Yet you’re victim blaming CAH because you think they’re not doing enough to lay claim to their land?

      You’re not arguing in Good Faith. You’re trolling. Good faith would require you actually having understood the situation before making your weak accusations.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why do conservatives never want to conserve anything?

      Not developing land is a good thing for the planet and our species.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        65
        ·
        2 months ago

        You don’t need to develop land to protect it, farmers use fences, it lets people know like hunters to not use their land. You also kinda need a presence, or even your neighbor will use your l as if they notice you’re never there….

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          56
          ·
          2 months ago

          You know what lets people know it’s your land? A map. Also, county records.

          You know how hunters know not to use your land? They don’t own it and didn’t get permission.

          Seriously, have you never met a hunter before? They’re not a bunch of morons. They don’t want to get fined or arrested or, worse, shot for trespassing.

          Also, this is utter nonsense:

          You also kinda need a presence, or even your neighbor will use your l as if they notice you’re never there….

          The houses on either side of mine are empty. One was foreclosed on, the other’s owner died and no one has taken over the house. I wish someone would use their land. At least the grass would get mowed.

          There are entire towns that are virtually empty. They don’t have people just come in and start illegally developing land and no one cares.

        • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          2 months ago

          Holy shit I’m glad you’re not my neighbor. With your understanding in place I’d go out of town for work and come back to you building a palace for your erotic Lego Luigi sculptures on my porch.

          • Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            He sounds like a Zio settler. “This property wasn’t used (for 60 seconds), I guess it’s up for grabs. It’s mine now. Fuck you, you should’ve used it.”

            Edit: added a missing word

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re not discussing in good faith, you’re victim blaming. “If you didn’t want SpaceX to dump stuff on your property you should’ve put a fence up” is victim blaming.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They said they would do anything possible, I’m calling out they did the bare minimum, or less when they said they would do ANYTHING. This is the extremely important detail everyone seems to be ignoring, they PROMISED to do anything possible, which they failed to do.

        Just because I have a different opinion or see things in a. Different light doesn’t make me arguing in bad faith, that’s a fallacy people use to derail from their circle jerks.

    • Q*Bert Reynolds
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Good call. Put a fence on the land they bought to prevent Trump from putting a fence on the land.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        Just build the fence underground so people can still walk over it. Easy!