Relevant PG essay:

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

"The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed."

At present, the idea that California might be returned to Mexico or that all non-native-Americans might be kicked out of America is sufficiently ridiculous that nobody will take you seriously. Thus, there's no reason to get offended. You can say whatever you want, you're just a nutcase.

That China gets mad whenever you suggest that Tibet become its own country or when you mention Tiananmen Square indicates that it worries its citizens might actually take you seriously...

I think pg in that essay makes the assumption that morality is absolute, and we should always be questioning the thoughts of ourselves on the basis of where we are now. But the fact is morality isn't absolute; he falls too much into the positivist trap of believing in humanistic perfection, while reality is much stickier than that. Ultimately, people believe in something, and whether or not that is right (to you), that's what's true to them. Qualms about moral relativism aside, you have to at the very least accept what people believe to be able to level with them. I can definitely accept what pg says about moralism insomuch as it 's a force to be questioned, but that's a morality as is any other. Ultimately, morality rests in the collective conscience, even of a nation, and what China thinks is bad is bad for China. Maybe we don't think so, but that's us anyways.

I don't think you interpreted what I was saying correctly. Why should I be offended at the idea of the idea of my state joining my state seriously joining the Mexican federation?

It's an addition to the conversation, not a response. I'm not saying you should be offended, I'm providing context to this and previous replies so that other people who read this subthread can understand why California joining Mexico is a different situation from Tibet splitting from China and so responses differ.

Well for one the analogy is more like a New Yorker taking offense at the prospect of California (or Texas) joining Mexico. That puts it in a different light, although it’s stull not comparable to he forced displacement and ethnic inequalities that has happened and is happening in Tibet.

I don’t think PG really knows what he is talking about with respect to Tibet China relations if he thinks that analogy holds...

Maybe not now. But 100 years ago, it certainly would. And that's about where China is now, regarding Tibet, and such autonomous regions as Xinjiang. It takes time for opinions to go from offensive to laughable.

I'm not laughing. I'm seriously confused as to why I'm supposed to be offended at the prospect of becoming mexican. Is that supposed to be lower status or something? I can't think of a reason here that would be offensive which doesn't boil down to underlying racism or anachronistic nationalism.

Well yes, "racism or anachronistic nationalism". There you have it. You're unusual, arguably.