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 di

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.