American woman sings national anthem in Spanish; receives death threats from terrorists.
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!
https://www.tmz.com/2025/06/18/nezza-death-threats-for-singing-national-anthem-at-dodgers-game/Open linkView original on fanaticus.social
50 replies
I wish others would follow this young lady's lead. This is brilliant.
Why do I get the feeling singing the Mexican national anthem in english at a football match in Queretaro, Mexico might be met with a similar response?
Kind of depends on the context.
The US had no official language up until very recently
We don’t have an official language (still technically don’t anyway, Trump’s order only applies to the Executive branch), but we do have an official Spanish language version of the National Anthem.
It's almost like the US has 14% fluent Spanish speakers to Mexico's 4% fluent English speakers 🤔
Yo! Knower of stats! What's the US fluent English rate? And why is it artificially high?
She should sing out their death threats to praise their model American behavior.
Genuinely that'd be a crazy response. Compile the threats together, make them into a song, sing it in Spanish.
And sing it to the tune of the US national anthem.
Were they in Spanish though? Or just a plain old boring kinda death threat?
No se amigo. No se
Believe it or not, 98% in Esperanto.
Patriot and terrorist sound very yte
Soft of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvcotaYpHrQ vibes
Trump recently made death threats aimed at the Iranian government.
Yep, and we know exactly what he is
Not disproving the point.
I get what you're saying but that definition of yours is lacking at best
Your previous comment left out the "to achieve political or ideological aims" part, which is the essential difference between terrorism and regular violence.
"Ideological" does not cover:
There are lots of situations in which a threat to kill is not terrorism. Quit trying to dilute the definition of terrorism.
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.
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.
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:
Not every murderer is a terrorist.
Dumb. You don't get to change definitions of words because you don't grasp the concept. Sorry. You are just flat wrong here.
People typically have definitions like this in mind:
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:
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.
They’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?
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.
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.
You need help dude, 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?
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.
Not here to argue. Can tell you’re having a tough time.
Sending hugs your way.
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.
Threats of the sort that induce life-fearing terror 🤔
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
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.
Finally someone who gets to the actual meaning of the word. Sorry, but the other answers weren't good.