iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 9m

It’s not clear at all. You do agree that no one gets to unilaterally define terms, correct?

000

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 10m

So, you can’t provide any peer-reviewed that support your argument?

010

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 11m

The subject was whether Zionism is racist was something that the Greens came up with. I asked you whether there was any scientific evidence that disconfirmed that statement, and you avoided the question. Then I asked what your definition of Zionism was. You punted that question too.

000

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 2h

Can you show us some peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate your claim and disconfirm hers?

120

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 2h

The labels are necessarily part of the concept. If you remove the label, you remove the head of the concept. You’re not ripping off the head in order to redefine the terminology without it, are you?

120

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 2h

False. The existence of that definition existed prior to the Greens ever making the declaration. It was not new, as I successfully demonstrated. You were then asked to disconfirm the claim itself, and to provide a definition that you were using. You have refused to do so.

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 5h

Well, the discussion was about definitions and the claim that the Greens created a new definition. That, of course, is false. The conversation didn’t turn into a scientific discussion, but never left that default method to begin with. You were asked first, and you forfeited to answer. Simple.

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 5h

The nature of my inquiry isn’t odd at all. In fact, it’s kind of odd that you find it odd, as defining our terms is a normal starting point for a scientific discussion. You didn’t seem to find it odd when you wanted my definition. I asked you first. Courtesy would be answering the question.

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 6h

He’s just taking the contrarian stance in order to play judge and advocate (aka. Devil’s Advocate). In another thread, I asked which criterion that makes Zionism what it is actually is. First he answered a different question. When pressed again, he described arbitrarily. Judges are arbiters.

020

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 7h

Yes, you did. You wrote: “So whether your definition is "originalist"/"historical usage"/"most everyone who identifies"/"important identifiers" none of it is going to fit.” The moment I brought up the morphological break down, you decided to leave because you can’t squirm out of that.

010

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 7h

You’ve basically said that no definition fits, which essentially is declaring yourself the arbiter and starting from contrarianism in order to avoid locking yourself down. Given yourself a veto over discourse. Let’s walk through it. Can you have Zionism without the two morphemes “Zion + ism”?

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 7h

So, to be clear, your definition of Zionism is arbitrary?

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 8h

I didn’t ask what a Zionist is. Someone said that Zionism a call for an ethnostate, and you said that’s factually wrong. Meaning you do have a definition. I asked about which criterion it is that you believe is necessary to make it Zionism, and which the removal of causes it to cease being Zionism.

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 11h

Seems like a fairly straightforward question. We are in agreement that your answer was both yes and no, are we not?

010

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 11h

You tell me. I thought that you viewed fascism as something to be opposed. You seem divided on that.

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 12h

What criterion is it that you believe is necessary for the ideology to be Zionism, and from which the removal of said criterion can’t happen without it ceasing to be Zionism?

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 12h

If fascism is the ideology of the state (not to be confused with government), does that mean that you ultimately support the deconstruction of all state class hierarchies?

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 22h

Well, it kind of is the point here. The etymology determines the true meaning of the word or morpheme because it’s the entire catalogue of meanings. If someone defines it in the opposite way because they don’t like the connotations, then they have to first contradict the etymology.

010

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 22h

That sounds kind of arbitrary. The etymology determines the non-arbitrary definition from which others derive. So, if a number of people interpret Zionism as a racist ideology, then do you respect that as a valid definition?

120

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

If it’s not the etymology, then who has the authority to define the term?

120

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I typically don’t answer bad faith questions. Have you considered that I’m simply not bound by the dualistic assumptions that come from Abrahamic thought?

010

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

So, how does one determine whether this ideology is racist or not? Not a rhetorical question. The origins? The founders of Zionism tried to incorporate race science. The etymology? Zion is a metaphor for biblical Israel, with messianic interpretations. The actions? They’re colonizing Palestine.

0131

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

No, social democracy most definitely is not egalitarian. Scandinavian countries have strong social safety nets, but there are dozens of billionaires in Sweden alone. The presence of formally recognized class hierarchies (ie. the state and private capital) disconfirms your claim of egalitarianism.

021

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Well, you kind of are. Social democracy can’t be egalitarian. They’re state capitalist with highly regulated markets/welfare. There’s a formal political and economic class hierarchy, making them non-egalitarian by definition. Social democracy is a centrist ideology that requires hierarchy.

131

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

The semiotic definition narrows it. The word carries two morphemes: Zionism = Zion,(“a mountain in Jerusalem, used as a synecdoche for Biblical Israel”) + -ism,(“ideology, principle, or condition born of”) = Ideology or Principle born of Zion. Important in a messianic religious tradition.

010

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Ah, there it is. That explains why you’re confused. The left is defined by egalitarianism, yes. Social democratic parties and liberal parties both rely on state capitalism, which means they can’t be egalitarian. The further away you get from the far left, the less egalitarian it becomes.

121

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

To be clear, you don’t define the far left by egalitarian social relations with a lack of political and economic class hierarchy?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

But you do define the far left by egalitarian social relations with a lack of political and economic class hierarchy, right?

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

When you say far left, you mean egalitarians, right?

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

My inquiry predates your inquiry. As I stated, I’m happy to consider yours once we finish my line of questioning. It would be bad form to reward the avoidance of my question, as you know. Should you change your mind and answer, we can continue. If not, then I’ll assume you don’t want to continue.

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I’m happy to consider your question, once we determine how you’re defining Zionism and finish that line of questioning. You think about it, and when you’ve figured it out, we can continue.

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

I consider scientific evidence to typically fall under empirical evidence. The statement is either false or it’s not. I have no doubt that you’re waiting for my definition, but I’d like to hear your definition first. We can then test it together.

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

Empirical evidence, you mean? You should ask them. How are you defining Zionism?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

If you recall, you were asking bad faith questions when we started talking. I wanted to see if you’d hold the Democrats to any responsibility, and you demonstrated and confirmed my point. That you won’t hold them responsible, and that you won’t take any responsibility.

000

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

That’s an interesting hypothesis. Science disconfirms testable statements. If the statement that “Zionism is a racist ideology” is false, then demonstrating how it’s false should be pretty straightforward for you. How are you defining Zionism?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

So, you’re resorting to DARVO tactics because you lack the integrity and self-reflection to hold your party responsible? Now you know why your country is collapsing in real time, genocide voter. Are you personally being affected by the 2024 results?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

The resolution was revoked as a condition for Israel’s participation in the Madrid conference. Sounds like politics, and they could go “full on” it again at any time. Is there any scientific evidence that actually disconfirms it as a racist ideology?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Strictly speaking, colonization doesn’t require a metropole. And if you want to get strict about definitions, then we’re getting into semantics and semiotics. That means that Zionism is the ideology of Zion, which is a synecdoche for biblical Israel, and is related to messianic beliefs.

000

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

You mean that you don’t want to hold the Democrats responsible for their actions, yes? The moment you were backed into a corner, you began having a meltdown. Even now, you still refuse to acknowledge that they had any responsibility for the loss.

110

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

How do you define colonial? Has there ever been a point where it has not been a colonial ideology?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Interesting that you messaged me, as I remembered you about 2 hours ago. I said that it used to be a resolution, yes. The point being that the notion that it’s a new definition isn’t actually the case. The idea that it’s a racist ideology isn’t a new one that the Greens just came up with.

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

…definition that is meant to revise history in order to make the colonization palatable, paint the ideology in a positive light, and shield Israel from criticism. To clarify, we are in agreement that Zionism is an ethnosupremacist and colonial project, are we not?

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

It was revoked because Israel made it a condition of its participation in the Madrid conference, and the US under Bush I pushed for it. The problem with the popularized definition is that it has never been the primary definition, nor even the etymological definition. It’s a propgandized…

100

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

A will that’s free of causality is a religious concept.

000

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

That’s kind of my point. The Greens didn’t create a new definition, but applied an older and more established one. The “Zionism is racism” part isn’t really new, either. It used to be a full-on UN resolution. Do you disagree with that definition, or do you just think it’s not the popularized one?

200

Crown Prince Thutmose @thutmose.bsky.social · 04/10/2026

Well, there is next to no GOP partisans on BlueSky, so which partisans of theirs should be held accountable. There is, however, plenty of Democrat partisans trying to blame everyone but their own party, and, by extension themselves, for enabling genocide.

100