cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639322

cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639321

cross-posted from: https://fanaticus.social/post/6639317

Vamanos Doyers!

all 52 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 46 points 1 year ago

I wish others would follow this young lady's lead. This is brilliant.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    She should sing out their death threats to praise their model American behavior.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Were they in Spanish though? Or just a plain old boring kinda death threat?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Patriot and terrorist sound very yte

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    [+] -24 points 1 year ago* (35 children)
  • [+] 42 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I get what you're saying but that definition of yours is lacking at best

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Your previous comment left out the "to achieve political or ideological aims" part, which is the essential difference between terrorism and regular violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    “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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    People typically have definitions like this in mind:

    1. the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-
      1. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
      2. appear to be intended-
        1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
        2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
        3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
      3. 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] 32 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Death threats are terrorism my guy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Their ideological goal is to remove Spanish speakers fr the us.

    Don’t be thick.

    This is terrorism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not here to argue. Can tell you’re having a tough time.

    Sending hugs your way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you really don't have anything better to do than try to get under some strangers skin I feel kind of bad for you. Wishing you the best of luck in working on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago

    You really wanna argue huh?

    This isn’t even about me or anything I said is it.

    What’s bugging you man? One of the off days in the butter you ate?

    I hope you fall face first into whatever it is you’re looking for and your day improves.

    I like you man, you’re crazy. But I like you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You need help dude, going after people like this because you can't read what they're writing is pretty alarming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    going after people like this because you can’t read what they’re writing is pretty alarming

    Is this a confession?

    Who is “going after” anyone? Is responding to a reply an act of aggression to you?

    Yikes.

    You ok buddy? Wanna talk about anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You ok buddy? Wanna talk about something?

    This is what I mean. This is a classic example of a condescending way of talking to people. You really shouldn't be talking to people like this, it's not constructive at all and just makes you seem angry and like you have nothing better to say.

    Nobody here is trying to fight you. If you don't have anything constructive to say you can just refrain from commenting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If you don’t have anything constructive to say you can just refrain from commenting.

    Right this is what I’m saying.

    I’m not even sure why you’re mad at me.

    It seems like something else is troubling you.

    And you’re shoveling it on me.

    Whatever is bugging you , I hope you can get past it.

    If you don’t want to get past it, then I dunno what to tell you.

    Good luck buddy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    15 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 31 points 1 year ago

    We didn't mean THAT type of freedom!! Only the freedom we allow you to have!

  • source
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    TMZ comment threads have that “my dumb brother in law” energy.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oi mate those 'terrorists' are your leadership

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Knowing MAGA, these days. Not a shock.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    So, Republicans, you mean.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Any1 know where I can find a full clip of the performance? —Not 🇺🇲

  • source