|simon666 - 2018-07-13 |
Homegirl is funny, but here's my 2 cent criticism that I think That guy will appreciate:
She seems to be making a metaphysical argument about the term "The West" suggesting that because the conceptual borders are not easily defined therefore there is no "West" to which the term/concept refers bla bla bla.
This is think is a weak argument; it's analogous to putting variously sized heaps of sand on the table and being like "there is no such thing as a heap because these are all different sizes and if you start taking a grain away you never know where the heap begins or ends..."
The stronger starting place is to look at how people _use_ the term "The West" in particular contexts and argue against what the person means in one of those contexts of use; or choose 4 uses that might be representative or paradigmatic enough to capture most uses of "The West".
I like to define ‘the west’ as containing any country engaging in military/government backed corporate colonialism. The countries that start wars or destabilize nations for economic gain. Stop global progress because corporate interests would lose money. Etc etc.
There are many democracies in Europe and elsewhere that don’t engage in such actions, and some even oppose them, but most are passively complicit because of the power ‘the west’ holds over them.
‘The west’ and ‘western civilization’ refer to different things/issues
are you being stupid or just an ass?
like, do you think Russia is complaining about white people when it refers to 'the west'?
when russia does it it means something totally different. they mean: white people, except for russia.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|