> There are zero ways to interpret this that are okay if you have a sliver of moral integrity in you
I think democracies are innately superior, including morally, to autocracies. I think market-based economic systems are innately competitive against--and in their capacity to empower individual production, morally superior to--command economies.
A lot of broad assumptions and black or white categorisation of things that are too big to fit into such narrow terms as superior or inferior.
This is a discussion that will never be improved by system proponents proclaiming theirs as superior, and bringing dangerously connotated terms like innate to the table is only making it worse.
Of course not. But one of its fundamental advantages is its ability to build alliances and accept immigrants. Historically, those have been strengths of republics. That’s “innate” to the structure of the society.
> the world's largest democracy is in south Asia
India is a great example of Western culture hybridising with a local culture to produce a sum that’s greater than its parts. The British were dicks, particularly in India, and I’m not arguing that colonisation is okay. But I think it’s fair to say that a unified, democratic India very much flows from its exposure to Western systems of law and government. (India had indigenous democratic city-states. But in the south and never at scale.)
“The west” as a culture or thought definitely doesn’t include Russia - like in a other comment in this thread it’s the US, EU and allies, so mostly NATO
Some common definitions of the west are white people, western European countries and their former colonies, and the US and their allies. Many such countries are democratic currently. None are democratic innately.
Immigrants and white people are unrelated categories.
> I think democracies are innately superior, including morally, to autocracies.
Even if the democracy commits mass genocide? I think the most dangerous societies/systems/governments are those filled by people who think they or their system are innately superior ( especially morally ) as it gives them moral cover to commit all kinds of evil.
Then again, Socrates and Plato thought democracies were innately inferior...
History certainly hasn't shown democracies to be innately morally superior.
Well at least for pigs, cross-breeding is innately superior to consanguinity....
I don't think that is what Palantir's boss was getting at here though.
That’s a cute setup there, but misses the point. The west—aka white people—don’t have any ”innate“ traits that make them superior to other humans. The entire foundation of our lives is built on the exploitation of others over hundreds of years. Suggesting that is the natural order of things is twisted bullshit, and we’ve heard it a hundred years before. It was wrong then, it is wrong now. Even alluring to that school of thought is wrong.
And no amount of „admit you like being privileged“ changes that.
This is the problem. Western culture isn't just white. Hell, the term 'white' is really a New World race. In the Old World, Europeans were enslaving each other and being enslaved by e.g. the Mamluks and Ottomans.
Do you have sources to backup your claim that Karp is only envisioning white people as part of the west? Is he a known white supremicist? I could not find such a claim.
That you have created a new category of people: 'white', that were historically not considered belonging to the same group does not subsume the history of western thinking; which arguably started in the middle east, was further developed by europeans, and is now fully multi-cultural.
The west, as a culture, absorbs what is useful and discards the not useful.
Notice that you are just admitting the superiority of the west here, no weak culture with subpar technology or weak people can exploit or conquer others. And pretty much everyone has tried to exploit others as much as they possibly could, that's unfortunately just how humans are. Everyone has at least one objectively bad ancestor, no matter the race or culture.
People often use "racism" as a stand-in for all bigotry. You are correct that this technically isn't racist, but it is instead textbook xenophobia, so your comment is mostly just an annoying pedantic correction that doesn't actually address the underlying point being made about the bigotry of the original statement.
> it is instead textbook xenophobia, so your comment is mostly just an annoying pedantic correction
We're in the midst of a backlash to reducing the word racism to a banal definition. Let's learn from it.
Karp's statement is xenophobic, jingoistic and bigoted. It's worded to not offend racists, because we have a lot of them in government right now. But it's not racist per se, and will be found agreeable by many non-racists in a non-racist way.
Quite honestly I do not care about the feelings of anyone who self-identifies as xenophobic and is offended at being called racist or vice versa. Bigotry is bigotry and bigotry of any form shouldn't be tolerated, excused, or empowered.
> Japan is in the West and last time I checked they were still Asians.
Japan is not in the west. Japan is not a western country. They are not a western peoples. They don't speak a western language. They don't have western culture. They don't even use western script.
In what world is Japan "in the West"? Ask a japanese person whether they are in the west or are westerners. They'd laugh in your face.
The west is narrowly western european or western european descended majority nations. Broadly it's european majority nations.
And the US crushed them, pretty hard. It was mostly white people who defeated that evil nation. Just like it was mostly white people that defeated Nazi Germany. Maybe people back then should have been more into the current "whites are all the same" level of thinking to prevent all those pointless wars.
You are hallucinating arguments that I never made.
I said “the west” in the context of what Palantirs CEO was talking about refers to countries that are mainly seen as populated by white people.
I never said “white people bad” but that is what you seem to understand, I wonder where it came from?
I was replying to your comment saying "Japan racist and nazi ally" existing in this specific context that is filled with the crystal clear logic: "the west" equals "white people" equals "bad" which means "Karp literally racist and nazi too".
Your comment doesn't even make much sense in the vacuum except maybe as a quick fact check, but then you can consider my reply as just an extension of your comment. There is always someone who doesn't know that the WWII was not really about white people vs. non-white people type of thing.
Maybe those racists should have gotten together, forget their minor differences, and commit even more atrocious acts since folks these days think they were all baddies (and white, the worst thing of them all!) anyway. The wars they fought were completely pointless.
If only there was someone to tell them that all whites are really the same, so they would have understood. Well, Hitler had some ideas of unity close to that (with idiotic things like excluding "those stupid eastern slavs"). Modern racists see nothing but the skin colour, they don't even bother measuring your skull. That's how bad things have gotten.
Well, until quite recently in the US polite society, the Irish were not considered white... So entering into any kind of debate with such ill defined terminology as "the West" or "White" seems extremely pointless to me. Only snake-oil salesmen would use such terms in earnest.
It can be both depending on the context. A westerner is a european or a european descended person.
> For example many Asian people are more western than many white Americans.
What does this even mean? How can an asian person be more western than a white american. That's like saying a white american be more "eastern" than a chinese person.
I've never heard an asian person say they are a westerner. There may be asian people who appreciate western culture more than some westerners, but that doesn't make them a westerner. No more than a white american who appreciates chinese culture more than the average chinese makes him a chinese person.
> Would you really not consider e.g. adoptive children to be part of the culture of their adoptive parents?
Sure. But culture isn't "innate". But being a westerner is innate. I could learn chinese, but that doesn't make me a chinese person. A chinese person could learn english but he is still "innately" chinese.
> Very easily, since one is an ethnicity, while the other is a nationality/culture.
I already acknowledged that. My point is what do you mean by a western person or a westerner. Anyone can partake in a culture. You can eat chinese food or indian food but that doesn't make you a chinese person or an indian person.
Am I wrong here. Or is the term "west/westerner" used differently around the world.
Would a child of European descent born and raised in China be a 'westerner' in your eyes? What about a second generation child, still fully ethnically European?
> Would a child of European descent born and raised in China be a 'westerner' in your eyes?
Not just to my eyes. To chinese eyes, african eyes, middle eastern eyes, etc. There have been tiktoks and youtube videos of westerners born in china who were called foreigners by the chinese themselves.
> What about a second generation child, still fully ethnically European?
Elon Musk was born in south africa, a non-western country in a non-western continent. Charlize Theron was born in south africa. They are both westerners. Doesn't matter where you were born.
The european person born in china can become a chinese citizen. But he can never become "chinese". Just like a chinese person can never become a european/westerner. He can become a EU citizen. He can become an american citizen. But he can't become a westerner. Am I wrong here?
Innate in this context may just well refer to the fact that he strongly believes that values rated pretty high in the west like democracy are inherently good and they should be promoted to the rest of the world. Note that I don't personally agree with that, I strongly think everyone should be minding their own business. Truly superior ways are copied and emulated sooner or later anyway.