In practice, though, this turns into a motte-and-bailey, whether or not that is your intent.
When someone today talks about "decolonization", what are the odds that they're talking about Palestine? What are the odds that they're talking about the Belgian Congo? This is especially true if it shows up on Twitter rather than in an obscure journal about the 20th century history of Africa.
So (many) people are using "decolonization" to mean the destruction of Israel. And then (some, and maybe not the same) people are saying "you can't say decolonization means genocide, because there's all this history of Africa and India and the Caribbean and so on - it doesn't necessarily mean that." OK, fine, but these days, on Twitter, what percentage of it does mean wiping out Israel? 95%? 99%?
So, yes, as a matter of definition, you have a point. In practice, Twitter has a point.
> When someone today talks about "decolonization", what are the odds that they're talking about Palestine?
In my particular bubble? Essentially zero. It's pretty much always going to be in the context of a past or present British colony, or a person's mental state aka "decolonize the mind". I readily admit my personal experience may not line up with whatever is trending on Twitter/X. And now we can't discuss those things on Twitter/X apparently. Is Twitter/X such a mess that this kind of limit is for the best? Maybe, I haven't been around in a long time, but it seems pretty damn toxic from the outside, but "freedom of speech" it ain't.
the odds people are [not] talking about something are subject to influence by censorship and political ideology. I disagree with your characterization of it as a motte-and-bailey fallacy, because the definition is based on conflating easy/not-easy to defend ideas. You haven't shown that one form of colonization is defensible and the other is not. Rather, you (or the side of that argument you are representing) are attempting to just redefine the word colonization ! I dont know if there's a fallacy name for "redefining words" but there should be.
When someone today talks about "decolonization", what are the odds that they're talking about Palestine? What are the odds that they're talking about the Belgian Congo? This is especially true if it shows up on Twitter rather than in an obscure journal about the 20th century history of Africa.
So (many) people are using "decolonization" to mean the destruction of Israel. And then (some, and maybe not the same) people are saying "you can't say decolonization means genocide, because there's all this history of Africa and India and the Caribbean and so on - it doesn't necessarily mean that." OK, fine, but these days, on Twitter, what percentage of it does mean wiping out Israel? 95%? 99%?
So, yes, as a matter of definition, you have a point. In practice, Twitter has a point.