> employing what has become his signature (paraphrasing) rhetoric of, ".. and through using our products this can have the outcome of killing of certain specific people". That seems like a deliberate rhetorical choice rather than anything to do with, "the spectrum."

I do this often. I think because I am autistic.

Neurotypical's use language in very indirect and subtle ways that I do not like. Some words mean the same things but are perceived as more offensive or more acceptable.

If I must ever eat meat I make sure I will say things like "pass me a slice of cow" instead of "beef" or "pork". I refer to the act of imprisoning people as "caging". I refer to "culling" as "mass extermination", etc.

I think we have a duty to be as brutal as possible when we are talking about harming animals and humans. If you are off put by what you are doing, then perhaps you shouldn't be doing it.

Unlike the other comments here, I think this is a very genuine reason to not give someone security clearance. This has nothing to do with ideology, but does question whether someone is likely to act in way that serves national interests.

Whether or not Karp can be trusted, I don't know, but I thin it's something governments should at least question, and believe most (all?) already do.

His political goals seem to align pretty well with the goals of the democratically elected governments, which are perfectly happy to buy products and services from him. You might not agree with their goals, but it’s absurd to suggest that this should make him ineligible for clearance. Clearance is not some kind of a “good boy with right politics” certification, it’s rather “is this person trustworthy enough to depend on in the matters of national security”.

Well that's even worse... I'm not sure I can personally get onboard with the idea of a government preventing people from obtaining security clearance for their personal or political opinions to be honest, unless they are directly opposed to the national security interests of the US of course...

What relevance does someone not liking his opinions and politics have on whether or not he should obtain security clearance? I assume your position here is more nuanced that what your comment suggests?

People frequently misunderstand me for someone who is lacking emotions.

I can't speak for Karp but I just experience and express them differently.

He may be on the psychopathy spectrum. I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if people are misunderstanding him.

Given you're making assumptions that he is on the psychopathy spectrum here, I will assume statistically that's unlikely and it's much more likely that people are simply misunderstanding him in ways people often misunderstand neurodivergent individuals.

What's the argument though, no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics?

Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason... They might provide "anti-democratic capabilities", but by that definition any defence company or AI company wouldn't be liable for security clearance because they also provide capabilities which could be used in anti-democratic ways.