3 ms·

You're moving the goalposts again. Or is this the motte-and-bailey? --- you: "Capitalism ended slavery and genocide" me: "No it didn't" you: "What I meant t

by hmcq6 3y ago

You're moving the goalposts again. Or is this the motte-and-bailey? --- you: "Capitalism ended slavery and genocide" me: "No it didn't" you: "What I meant to say is that Western Values influenced global consensus" --- you: "Punctuality being deemphasized is bad" me: "How has punctuality being deemphasized impacted you personally?" you: "Abandoning merit leads to dysfunction" --- And you can not seriously be offering up the pretense of impartiality? "Highlighting the positive does not imply denying the negative." Ok but highlighting the positive is by definition not impartial. Impartiality would be offering up the facts and letting others interpret those facts to come to their own conclusions. You're offering up a biased conclusion and working backwards with very few supporting facts. "And my stance isn't against inspecting our philosophical frameworks;" ... let me repost the longer quote "In no other region of the world is the intellectual class arguing that their own culture's values should be deemphasized, and that includes regions that are behind the West in a myriad of socioeconomic metrics. There is no excuse for this, and it needs to stop." Arguing that ones own culture's values should be deemphasized is inspecting your philosophical framework from an objective point of view. It is literally the process of removing subjectivity from the established merit system. And you said it "has to stop".

ETH_start 3y ago
I brought the discussion back to the original topic, after your inflammatory "crypto bro" comment took it down a different track. As I explained: Before we digress too far, let's remember that this discussion originated from a debate about colonialism and, more fundamentally, the merit of Western values. The link submitted is critical of the notion of the superiority of Western ideas and values in academia. My aim is to stay true to my original point about the overall impact of Western values. Regarding punctuality and merit, my concern is the broader implications, not necessarily immediate personal impact. It's about long-term societal effects. As for impartiality, highlighting positives doesn't imply bias. It’s about balancing the one-sided take of the decolonization movement. Also, being impartial doesn't require us to stop striving for our society's progress, nor does it oblige us to view all cultures as having equal impact on a society's material development. Recognizing that cultures are not all equally worthy of being emphasized is not bias—it's a practical observation that different cultural values will shape societies in different ways, and that some ways are preferable to others. I stand by my statement on the unique trend in Western academia to question its own foundational values. It’s one thing to critique and evolve; it's another to deemphasize without recognizing the positive contributions alongside the negatives. An impartial analysis would, I contend, conclude that certain Western values are exceptionally conducive to a well functioning society, and deserve the emphasis they currently receive.

by hmcq6 3y ago

ETH_start 3y ago

I brought the discussion back to the original topic, after your inflammatory "crypto bro" comment took it down a different track. As I explained: Before we digress too far, let's remember that this discussion originated from a debate about colonialism and, more fundamentally, the merit of Western values. The link submitted is critical of the notion of the superiority of Western ideas and values in academia. My aim is to stay true to my original point about the overall impact of Western values. Regarding punctuality and merit, my concern is the broader implications, not necessarily immediate personal impact. It's about long-term societal effects. As for impartiality, highlighting positives doesn't imply bias. It’s about balancing the one-sided take of the decolonization movement. Also, being impartial doesn't require us to stop striving for our society's progress, nor does it oblige us to view all cultures as having equal impact on a society's material development. Recognizing that cultures are not all equally worthy of being emphasized is not bias—it's a practical observation that different cultural values will shape societies in different ways, and that some ways are preferable to others. I stand by my statement on the unique trend in Western academia to question its own foundational values. It’s one thing to critique and evolve; it's another to deemphasize without recognizing the positive contributions alongside the negatives. An impartial analysis would, I contend, conclude that certain Western values are exceptionally conducive to a well functioning society, and deserve the emphasis they currently receive.