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!
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!
“Ideological” pretty much covers everything else. A threat to kill is an act of terrorism.
I think what’s happening here, is that murder has become so normalized that we have reached a point where the word “terrorism” has to have some special definition that excludes it from the regular run-of-the-mill terror one would experience when they’re life is threatened for whatever reason.
I mean, would you feel terror if someone threatened your life in a way that you truly believed you were in danger?
Oh, and she sung a song in Spanish, and was threatened with death for not singing in American English. That screams political to me…
“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.