PieFedAmerican woman sings national anthem in Spanish; receives death threats from terrorists.
www.tmz.com/2025/06/18/nezza-death-threats-for-…
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639321
cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639317
Vamanos Doyers!
15 Comments
Comments from other communities
It is ostensibly fallacious to posit that individuals who possess a monolingual propensity are capable of intellectual acuity or cognitive sophistication.
nkat2112I wish others would follow this young lady's lead. This is brilliant.
She should sing out their death threats to praise their model American behavior.
Were they in Spanish though? Or just a plain old boring kinda death threat?
Deleted by moderator
DeceptichumHow is violence against the civilian population to enforce political ideology terrorism?
Finally someone who gets to the actual meaning of the word. Sorry, but the other answers weren't good.
Deleted by author
I'm going to fucking kill Osama Bin Ladin. I'm going to build a time machine, go back in time, and strangle the motherfucker with my own two hands.
Em AdespotonTrump recently made death threats aimed at the Iranian government.
ImADifferentBirdI get what you're saying but that definition of yours is lacking at best
Deleted by author
Your previous comment left out the "to achieve political or ideological aims" part, which is the essential difference between terrorism and regular violence.
Deleted by author
“Ideological” pretty much covers everything else. A threat to kill is an act of terrorism.
"Ideological" does not cover:
- threatening to kill someone while robbing them
- threatening to kill someone because you're high off your gourd and hallucinating that they're a space alien
- threatening to kill someone because they fucked your wife
- threatening to kill someone because they're threatening you and you're acting in retaliation or self defense.
There are lots of situations in which a threat to kill is not terrorism. Quit trying to dilute the definition of terrorism.
Oh, and she sung a song in Spanish, and was threatened with death for not singing in American English. That screams political to me…
Okay, and...? I never disputed that this situation counted as terrorism; I only took issue with your overly-broad definition. In fact, it's doubly weird that you're choosing to die on this hill because you didn't even need to go overboard making the definition wider than it is when the situation easily meets the real definition of it anyway! The guy you initially replied to was wrong and you would have been correct, except that you overstated your argument for no good reason.
Words have meanings and you're using one of them wrong. That's all.
People typically have definitions like this in mind:
- the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-
- involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
- appear to be intended-
- to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
- to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
- to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
- occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Acts (1) dangerous to life (2) designed to coerce a population or a government.
Otherwise, any threat inimical to life would qualify.
Death is dangerous to life and groups of chuds threatening people who don’t sing their national anthem in their preferred language are attempting to coerce a population.
I think people in America typically have a definition like this:
“Terrorists” are defined as looking exactly like Osama Bin Laden and shouting “ISLAMIC JIHAD ALLAHU AKBAR LALALLALALALALALAL” before exploding like a stuck lemming from the video game “Lemmings”.
They also think that politics is operated purely on lies and name calling for power grabs and so therefore since they gave the terrorist label to brown people, they can’t ever be one and all their actions are excusable since it’s impossible for them to be a terrorist.
An act directed to a single person isn't an act intimidating or coercing the civil population.
In contrast, such an act directed at/broadcast to the general civil population does qualify as intimidation or coercion of the civil population.
DominusOfMegadeusThey’re directed at all brown people
Unless the threat was public as a general statement to the public, it was directed only to the individual.
Until the individual publicized it, did the public know?
Not necessarily. Not unless they're trying to force an ideology.
If I threaten to kill you because I plainly don't like you, that's not really making me a terrorist.
Deleted by author
Killing someone out of hate is an ideological goal.
In most cases, no. All hate is not ideological hate, and most killings are not ideological either. Most of the violence we see in the world is due to people's personal relationships with each other, or are the result of some spontaneous fight.
The problem with what you're doing here is you're diluting the meaning of the word "terrorism". You wrote out the definition, but you don't seem to understand it. The key element is that terrorism is not just instilling fear, but using that fear to obtain political or ideological goals.
If instilling fear is sufficient to make someone a terrorist, any violent criminal or anyone threatening others becomes a terrorist, and the word loses its meaning.
Sorry, that just doesn't follow the actual definition of terrorism. Remove the comma, and "often" and we're real closer.
Literally the first result on Google
From wiki:
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.[1]
Not every murderer is a terrorist.
Deleted by author
Dumb. You don't get to change definitions of words because you don't grasp the concept. Sorry. You are just flat wrong here.
Death threats are terrorism my guy
Stop diluting the word "terrorism" of its meaning. A death threat can be terrorism, and in this case it may very well be terrorism, but often it is not terrorism.
A gang member threatening to kill someone if they snitch isn't terrorist. A guy threatening to kill someone if they don't lay off his girl is not terrorist. Someone threatening to kill a person abusing their friend is not a terrorist.
Death threats are not inherently terrorist.
Edit: Are people misunderstanding something about what I'm saying here? I'm not condoning death threats in any way. Threatening someones life is categorically wrong and illegal. I'm just saying that something being wrong and illegal doesn't make it terrorist. Terrorism involves instilling fear to achieve ideological or political goals, death threats don't inherrently fulfill that criteria.
Their ideological goal is to remove Spanish speakers fr the us.
Don’t be thick.
This is terrorism.
I never said it wasn't. I see this comment section full of a very un-nuanced and frankly incorrect "death threats are terrorism" sentiment. That's just wrong.
You say "don't be thick", but it seems you didn't catch the opening sentence where I said that "this case may very well be terrorism".
Threatening to kill a singer in front of 55000 people is terrorism.
Full stop. Why are you arguing. Having a bad day?
Sorry about that hope it turns around for you.
Why are you being mean? I made a pretty simple point, and you're wilfully misinterpreting it, and I don't understand why.
I quite simply said "death threats are not inherently terrorism", and encouraged people to not misuse the word. You're acting like I said something completely different. You're trying to argue against something I've never said, and you're doing it in a pretty unkind way when you're starting with this "Having a bad day" stuff.
You need help dude, going after people like this because you can't read what they're writing is pretty alarming.
Yall are really gonna police this kind of comment for misusing the word "terrorism" my brother in Christ this definition is miles ahead of the one established in most US Americans' heads for the past few decades.
Deleted by moderator
Jean-luc Peak-hard
Threats against one person, sure, but don't ignore the context in which this happened. Trump has emboldened racists and encouraged ICE to tear apart families. People who simply want to better their lives. Don't get it twisted, this is state encouraged terrorism. Just because its against a single person doesn't mean they don't intend to terrorize the entire hispanic/latino community.
They say “you sing the national anthem at dodgers stadium again and you’ll die”
That’s a terroristic threat of violence at a place with 55000 people.
Go be dumb somewhere else dumy
We didn't mean THAT type of freedom!! Only the freedom we allow you to have!
TMZ comment threads have that “my dumb brother in law” energy.
How do you find the comments
I pressed number two on your mom last night.
Yeah reading those comments will give you brain cancer
TMZ, Faux, NY Post ☢️
Oh shit, did conservatives find a third joke?
Well, duh, we oprima’d it.
"It's so weird they have that Press 2 option anyway, who would use that?"
Oi mate those 'terrorists' are your leadership
Accurate, which is why it's all the more important to call them what they are...? Being an American obviously doesn't mean they support the terrorist leadership, so what's your point?
I bet all those unforgivable pieces of shit who stayed home last November instead of going out to vote feel totally vindicated right now
Knowing MAGA, these days. Not a shock.
So, Republicans, you mean.
Any1 know where I can find a full clip of the performance?
—Not 🇺🇲