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.

I agree. I’m putting “there are zero ways to interpret this that are okay” into that bucket of generalised binary nonsense.

Isn't it interesting, then, that Palantir is one of the many entities working to destroy democracy and bring on autocracy?

The west is not innately democratic. And the world's largest democracy is in south Asia.

> west is not innately democratic

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.)

You are definitely confused, 'the west' doesn't refer to a direction. It's the name of a culture that is (now) global.

Western thought and culture has been adopted and shaped by advances globally; including for ex. Russia; which is hardly in 'the west' geographically.

The west refers to many different ideas. Those ideas include India rarely.

Is Russia innately democratic?

“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

Under that logic can "the west" even mean anything? "White people"? You could argue it's full of immigrants, so it's not really white people.

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.

>Many such countries are democratic currently. None are democratic innately.

Okay, so your argument is that "the west" can only mean something "innate"?

>Some common definitions of the west are white people

Well hold on. I thought "the west" could only mean something "innate"? What makes makes the US "innately" white? The US is 30% non-white, after all.

> Okay, so your argument is that "the west" can only mean something "innate"?

Karp said the west is innately superior. JumpCrisscross suggested this was acceptable because democracies are innately superior to autocracies. But western countries are not innately democratic. And democracy is not innately western. Superiority is not innate if its basis is not innate.

> What makes makes the US "innately" white?

People who define the west as white people do not consider all Americans part of the west. And I said it was a common definition. Not good.

> 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.