In the original map, the yellow map areas are for places which have been a part of China for 200-500 years.

If the same gradiant was applied to a map of the US, the entire map would be yellow or white.

Noah has labeled the parts in yellow as “not really china”, so following that logic, none of the US would ‘really’ be the US either.

According to the original map, Orange has been a part of China for longer than the US has existed. For example, the parts of xinjiang that the silk road passes through.

Y’all have no idea what you’re asking for

I’ve got a pretty good idea: Death to America

Americans, when other Americans are being authoritarian: “What are we, a bunch of Asians?”

I need to get better about remembering to do this

took a stab at it:

ya gotta follow the guidelines in the sidebar:

1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?

3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).

5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

I just got one of those 😭

cowbee is one of the most patient posters I’ve seen

Death to America

Repeating abstractions to avoid engaging material reality. I’ve made my point and you’ve made it clear that you’re more concerned with hypotheticals.

There is no concrete catalog that affirms which representations are “actually existing”. There is rather open discourse with diverse contributions.

Proposals that matter in any ‘realistic’ sense (as you appealed to earlier) are not constituted by open-ended discourse, but by the concrete situations created through institutions, negotiations, and enforcement.

There’s plenty of examples of what these proposals look like in the historical record.

Vagueness doesn’t make the term neutral. Political proposals are defined by how they function in practice, not by every hypothetical version someone cooks up.

Every actually existing two-state proposal affirms the legitimacy of Israel as a settler-colonial state and confines Palestinian self-determination within that framework. If the ‘transformations’ you’re imagining undo that, then you’re no longer talking about the same thing.

You are maintaining the label but redefining the proposal until it no longer resembles reality, while simultaneously appealing to ‘realism’ as a reason to dispense with discussion of ending the settler-colonial state.

an objective of full parity among all current occupants of Palestine, settler and Palestinian, including freedom of movement for Palestinians throughout the entire territory

That is not a two-state solution as normally understood.

That’s more like one state with equal rights. You are not addressing my point either, you are substituting something different as if it answers my critique. Kind of a bait and switch.

Additionally, ‘parity’ does not actually address decolonization, ie the stolen land and material inequalities baked into the infrastructure and economy. Still sounds like apartheid.

“One of those states is Israel” is not a meaningful argument, because it begs the question of which transformations may have been imposed on Israel and the territory.

If Israel is so transformed that it no longer functions as a settler-colonial state then the proposal is no longer a standard two-state solution and calling it one is misleading.

They were banned for trolling, their past behavior is absolutely relevant.

None if it bears on whether advocacy for a “two-state solution” is necessarily Zionism.

I can spell it out for you:

Two states

One of those states is Israel

Israel is a settler-colonial state produced through dispossession and genocide

Accepting its legitimacy and permanence is Zionism

Advocating for it is Zionism

Your appeal to ‘realism’ just means accepting the colonial status quo. Given current power relations, a two-state solution would rapidly become apartheid by another name.

You introduced Zionism into the discussion.

It’s why OP was banned from other places.

The entire settler population being expelled is not feasible.

The link I posted has numerous people explain that advocating for the liberation of Palestine isn’t the same as advocating for a genocide or expulsion of Jews in Israel.

It’s not, and the fact that you jumped to that is why I respond in kind.

You started the deflecting, you started asking if advocating for a two state solution was zionism, then pivoted to ‘whats realistic’ when I said ‘yes, obviously.’

Thats why my last post was actually completely relevant.

Tbh I kind of expect this orientation from slrpolice.net

after all this is your admin

I guess punk is when you approve of the government policing speech about a settler colony

Ok bluemaga

I would agree with that assessment, advocating for a two-state solution accepts the continued existence of the settler-colonial state. It treats the outcome of dispossession and genocide as a settled fact and asks Palestinians to negotiate within the framework created by that violence.

It’s a sign that people got tired of your trolling.

quoting a previous comment I made to you, re-iterating another comment made to you:

you just sort of say your thing and move on, even if you pose yourself as seeking conversation. This is exemplified by how you constantly say the same things unprompted over and over even when not a single person has responded positively to some of it, and there’s no apparent effort to change what you’re saying to even account for that, even if it’s just presenting an argument differently (though normally you don’t even really argue, you just declare).