Not necessarily. If doing that is against a persons value system, it’s perfectly acceptable for them to choose not to enter a relationship with that person. It doesn’t have to be related to control.

If my partner started doing that without telling me, I’d tell them it’s not consistent with my value system and see if they’d reconsider. If not, we’d go our separate ways.

Never said Westerners were the only imperialists. But the scale of their foreign interference, in recent times, is unmatched. The Japanese mostly stayed within East Asia.

You can attempt to throw out as many supposed counter-examples you like. Nothing will match the scale of destruction and genocide that was the European colonial era.

No one is saying that the Europeans were the only ones that lacked the ethical framework to forego the colonial pursuit. The point is that they absolutely did lack that ethical framework and, well, here we are. There are many cultures on Earth that would not have done what they did, if given the same circumstances. Even though I know you’d prefer to focus on the cultures that would.

That doesn’t mean white people are more evil or violent. I personally beleive Abrahamic religions are often interpreted by their followers as a justification for conquest. It’s part of why Europe and the Middle East are so similar in their imperialistic aspirations over the past millennia.

Also you’re not a sociopath. The argument that you suggested is sociopathic though.

They parts are still made in China, the phones are just assembled in India.

We can speculate they’d hop on a boat and do that but the reality is only one region of the world actually did it on a scale that was globally disruptive in recent history.

In any case, it’s still a sociopathic argument that relies on gaslighting.

They have suprisingly open hiring policies, unlike some American institutions under the current regime.

The world doesn’t become a better place through appearances. People should smile if they’re actually happy, not because they’re being coerced into it.

Most people will actually smile back at you if you’re even just somewhat pleasant to be around.

This was a common argument used in the colonial era and is actually a common rationalization used by sociopaths (if you had my ability you’d hurt people too).

People are people. We are more a product of our environments than any innate differences.

Europeans and their descendants have had environmental pressures that led to certain advantages which they were willing to capitalize on globally. The inhumanity involved was predicated on dehumanizing other peoples and cultures, giving birth to white supremacy. The resultant industrialization they sought after has wreaked havoc on our planet and may bring our species to extinction through climate change.

I appreciate where your dad was coming from. It’s disappointing that we live in a world where your father even had to challenge such a proposterous notion (racial superiority).

But white people are not more violent. In the same way, I don’t see any accomplishment by a white person as unique to their race. They are human accomplishments first and, in my view, could have been achieved by any person in the same environmental circumstances.

I don’t even see white people as an amalgamation anymore. Or any ‘race’ for that matter. My ancestors are Indian so you can imagine we don’t all see or refer to ourselves as just Indian (an identity that within it holds 1500 dialects). I don’t think it’s a meaningful designation. It’s happenstance.

I’m much more interested in the specifics. Particularily, defining and understanding a persons worldview. If youre a person that tries to put people on a hierarchical ladder based on arbitrary physical traits, we’re probably not going to vibe. If you’re someone that understands that identity is fluid and evolves over time (just as our values might) and have a goal of making life better for ourselves and others then I would reassert what I said earlier. We are more similar than we are different.

They’re an existential threat to our species so I’m totally ok with giving them their own nation as a quarantine measure. They would immediately declare war when they realize their society/economy is dysfunctional either due to global ostracization or not having access to legacy wealth accruing mechanisms created during colonial times. The question is if America would come to their rescue as they have for the worlds other “favorite” ethnostate.

Does Nazi Fascistostan have a right to exist?

The implication is that China is a serious military threat so being allied with the West (not sure if the West as a whole is that strong militarily, moreso the US [perhaps the UK and France] specifically) is necessary for India.

China and India were friends long ago, throughout much of human history actually. The attitude between both regions was one of “you got your good thing going, and we got our good thing going”. It’s how both civilizations coexisted for thousands of years.

Things changed in the colonial era and after. Britain needed to bankroll their industrial revolution to, in their view, push humanity forward but really it was mostly for themselves. They turned India into a resource mining machine and pumped China full of opium (often grown in India) mostly so that they could… purchase tea?

Shortly after the end of WW2 and both nations were free from the shackles of Anglo tyranny, China was not happy with the borders the British had drawn and wanted to take control of a region, given to India, that connected Tibet and Xinjiang called Aksai Chin. This led to the Sino Indian war in 1962 which China won with a suprise attack, reasserting its presence as a major regional player and putting India in a position to more closely ally with the Soviet Union for military purposes.

Since then, India and China have not really been close, even if they are both BRICS nations. China also went on to help Pakistan procure nuclear weapons so its going to be quite some time before this relationship is mended.

Thats one way to see it. India and the West see each other as strategic allies in a mutually beneficial arrangement given Indias proximity to China and Russia. I don’t see it as one sided as you’re suggesting, especially since historically India and Russia have been friendly to each other.

Tankies and MAGA.

They’re the same picture.

They’ve gotten friendlier with the West in the past few decades. The distrust is for good reason given history of Western foreign interference (colonialism) and the US having a close relationship with Pakistan pre Bin Laden.

I take it here is not in the US.

But even if you’re in Sweden or Norway, it shouldn’t matter. People are people. And I can also confirm that there are black families that go to IKEA 🤣.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I see it now. Yuck. Thank you.

This sounds like a misrepresentation of left wing politics.

It sounds more like how the right defines the left which brings us to the real issue.

Outrage narratives have grown increasingly popular with social media and the right spends endless time blaring sirens on representing the left a certain way.

The left has in response, done little, to influence the narrative.

I personally have not heard the left as a whole admonishing individual men simply for being men.

I think an honest assessment of society, historically and now, should lead to the conclusion that we live in a male centric society that is gradually becoming less male centric. This is a good thing if you believe in fairness and egalitarianism (ie. not fascism).

It was a little more than 50 years ago that women could not hold credit and were expected to be subservient to their husbands or else be institutionalized for “mental illness”.

I think many women see this backlash / desire to go back from conservative men as a skill issue so I’m not suprised they’re looking elsewhere.

Believe it or not, black people exist. Maybe not where you live specifically but I can personally confirm they’re real.