[scottdw2]

Is there any better way to change someone's mind, to change their fundamental mode of thought, to alter their perceptions and manner of reason than to educate them?

Here's an even better question: if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy?

Let's consider a central question.You espouse a belief in freedom, a nation built on liberty. Your enemy denies this, proclaims you a tyrant, and endeavors to make war against you. How do you respond?

One method undercuts your enemy's message, reaffirms your core values, and has the potential to alter and modify your enemy so that he is predisposed to be united with you.

The other affirms his message, strengths his position, and emboldens those who follow him.

This leads to the last question: what is your objective? Is it victory, or something else?

What better path to victory then to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you?

Our educational assets ought to therefore be shared. To sensor them in the name of security is foolish.

[Udo]

Neither of the systems or nations involved are keen on liberty, the only difference is one side has redefined what the word means in order to continue using it in elections, while the other outright believes personal freedom is a sign of decadence. At the core both believe in steep authoritarianism. Looking at things from the outside in, both the USA and the ideologies it fights have striking similarities. Both have values centered on abject ignorance and strict religious ideas, both are warlike and hierarchical, both are conservative with strong reactionary tendencies.

Sure, a good argument can be made that a culture based on Islamic fundamentalism is philosophically and ethically much worse than living under the droning malevolence of Christianity, but in reality there's little honor in being second place when both ideologies come with followers who run a big part of the world with money, advanced weapons and technology.

And I agree, one of the few concepts that could offer a way out of this is indeed education, hopefully paving the way for rationalism and humanism.

[rayiner]

Here's a question: have you ever actually lived in one of these Islamic countries to which you compare the U.S.?

I have. Indeed, my parents grew up in one. My dad still laments how Islamization undermined the secular democratic goals underpinning the country's independence movement. Nobody who has actual experience with the U.S. and such countries would say "the only difference is one side has redefined what the word means in order to continue using it in elections." This is the sort of adolescent false equivalence that will get you upvotes here on HN, from other people who have no experience with either Islamic nations or often even how religion functions here in the U.S.

Your errors are two-fold and fundamental: ignoring the ratios of extremists to moderates in the respective countries, and conflating the communitarianism that exists in America (not just in Christian but also in Jewish and Islamic communities), for the authoritarianism that exists in many Islamic countries.

[Udo]

I had to re-read both of our posts, but I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from. When I said "the only difference", I meant the concept of the word liberty, it was (which I thought was obvious) not intended to be a description of the cultural differences as a whole. I'm not saying both systems are the same, I just find the common features very interesting.

> This is the sort of adolescent nonsense that will get you upvotes here on HN

Sigh, this is the second time someone accuses me of angling for cheap upvotes. I didn't think it would get any, and that's not why I wrote it. I really do believe ignorance is the root of most evil that has befallen both systems, and I really do believe there are interesting similarities between them. Something which you seem to agree with at least partly.

That's not a popular stance, and if the goal was to get votes you'd think I'd have chosen something much less controversial and foam-around-the-mouth inducing.

I get that you're frustrated, but just because my comments don't turn gray immediately when you click on the down arrow doesn't necessarily mean I get karma from them either. And again, I think what upset you most is probably a misunderstanding in the first place.

[rayiner]

> I meant the concept of the word liberty, it was (which I thought was obvious) not intended to be a description of the cultural differences as a whole.

I wasn't talking about cultural differences, I was talking about liberty. This is the basis of my point about conflating communitarianism for authoritarianism. Most religious Americans, particularly Christian Americans, display many characteristics of communitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism. To them, liberty is not impinged by the establishment of religiously-based social standards and expectations. It's not totally consistent with classic liberal ideas about individual freedom, but is in fact quite consistent with a game-theoretic understanding of how totally free choice at an individual level isn't necessarily what maximizes free choice at a societal level. Rational secular humanists often believe in economic regulation, but ignore the fact that the same forces that lead to problems in unregulated economies can apply to unregulated societies.[1]

In Islamic countries, the prevailing mood is far more authoritarian. The practical importance of religious leaders and their edicts is far stronger. There is a chasm of difference between laws in a democratic society having a religious influence because the polity happens to be religious, and laws having a religious basis because of state establishment of religion.

> Sigh, this is the second time someone accuses me of angling for cheap upvotes.

For me, and I would imagine 'bananacurve as well, the purpose of mentioning upvotes was not to accuse you of angling for cheap upvotes, but to deride the upvoters.

[1] Right now, I live in Wilmington, Delware. There is an urban decay here. In 2011, we had 23 murders, for a city of about 70,000 people. Berlin that same year had less than 20, but is a city of 3.1 million people. The social structure has collapsed. Most of the kids are raised without involvement from fathers, gangs have replaced the authority structure that would've come from parents, etc. And "education" isn't going to fix it. Wilmington spends about $14,750 per year per pupil, as much as Switzerland, which is the OECD country that spends the most. Germany spends less than $10,000 per year per pupil. I'm not saying religion is the solution either, but you can't blame people for thinking it could be. Unrestricted individual liberty, where people have sex whenever they want and men abandon women and children as soon as they become inconvenient, clearly isn't leading to the greatest possible prosperity for the community. I'm not sure why European countries don't suffer from these ailments to the same degree, but I have a feeling that socialism has something to do with it, serving as a replacement for the communitarianism that is breaking down in many places in the U.S.

[Udo]

> This is the basis of my point about conflating communitarianism for authoritarianism.

It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception. You can assert that your opinion is the only valid one as long as you want, but if we're going to have a discussion about it I'll have to disagree on that point.

Communitarianism may be how they perceive themselves, but if you look at the prevailing structures that image falls apart pretty quickly. In fact, American-branded Christianity displays many of the characteristics of Authoritarianism, since it's also a quasi-political system rooted in many aspects of public and private life. Let me recycle your condescending Wikipedia-pasting maneuver here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism.

It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge.

At the same time, I'd be ridiculous to call the US an outright Theocracy, even though it has some similar traits. But the strict and militaristic hierarchy complete with large-scale control of public opinion makes it a better match for a system that has strong authoritarian traits.

Such is the limitation of labels. It's often hard to find one most people can agree with. They're of limited use in these cases, other than to approximate a certain meaning. However, that approximation is very brittle when communicating with people who are pissed off and/or disagree strongly about everything to begin with.

> In Islamic countries, the prevailing mood is far more authoritarian.

That's something we can agree on, as I believe I've said earlier in those comments you like to mock.

[rayiner]

> It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception.

The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception. It's one of "we decide that this is how we behave" versus "some authority decides how we behave." Whether American Christianity is communitarian or authoritarian may be one of perception, but what perspective do you have as someone who is admittedly unfamiliar with American Christianity?

> It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge.

This is not actually how religion functions in the U.S., especially among Protestant Christians, which are the largest religious group. I'm not religious, but my wife is, so I attend services about once a month. The message revolves around finding a personal relationship with God, not blind obedience to "many arbitrary tenants and restrictions on behavior." That's the meat and potatoes of mainstream American Christianity. Indeed, there is an anti-authoritarianism built into Protestant Christianity: it is based on a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church to dictate the meaning of the religion, and elevates individuals seeking a personal, individual connection with God.

[bananacurve]

While this claptrap will get you lots of up votes, the idea that the US is intentionally preventing the education of citizens of these countries is laughable. It is one of their stated goals to use education to undermine these regimes. The more educated they are they harder it is for their governments to keep control of them.

[Udo]

I don't think you've read that "claptrap" in its entirety, otherwise you'd have seen that I agree the undermining of those regimes is pretty much only achievable with education. If you're from the US, that includes your regime as well, which I'm guessing is the point you're disagreeing with.

If you really want to hear something controversial from me: I don't think the problem is political at all, at the core it's all about religious ignorance and religion-inspired values. Politics has a way of resolving itself, religion does not (except, again, through education hopefully).

Also I'd like to point out that I don't write comments to get upvotes - although it's nice to see people agreeing with me on stuff, I'm really here for the discourse. I fully expect my comments on this thread to turn gray shortly, to be honest.

[bananacurve]

No, it is claptrap.

>Both have values centered on abject ignorance and strict religious ideas

Having other confused people agree with you does not make it true. You believe in a caricature regarding both countries.

[Udo]

> Having other confused people agree with you does not make it true.

So people who don't agree with you are "confused" now?

> You believe in a caricature regarding both countries.

I agree it's problematic to make statements about entire countries. But it's comparatively easy to observe what their political systems act like in practice. Of course that doesn't necessarily reflect what the majority of citizens actually think and believe.

I must confess I find it hard to understand your tone here. We seem to agree on the basics. The only difference between us would be that you assert I have an exaggerated perception of certain traits.

[bananacurve]

If you believe a caricature to be literally true how are you not confused? I suspect many know it is not anywhere near true but enjoy anything that paints the powerful US in a bad light.

[thaumasiotes]

> if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy?

This seems like a fairly, um, naive set of questions. Let's imagine a hypothetical guy who shares all my values and views. Everything I like, he likes too. Everything I dislike, so does he.

I like Thai food. He likes Thai food.

I like Settlers of Catan. He likes Settlers of Catan.

I like reading Orson Scott Card. He likes reading Orson Scott Card.

I'm gunning for a promotion at work. He's gunning for the same promotion. Oops.

I like a girl called Susan. So does he!

When you consider just how alike we are, it's clear (?) that there is no room for conflict between us.

> What better path to victory th[a]n to alter the mind of your enemy until he is incapable of fighting you?

You're going to end up with fundamentally different modes of thought and perceptions afterwards, since this is you fighting the other guy but removing even the capability from him. It's more of a Brave New World alpha-epsilon relationship than a peer-peer relationship.

[vacri]

This is a 'Reduction to Absurdity' fallacy, a ridiculously overwrought interpretation of the parent's position.

[pessimizer]

There's nothing absurd about that reduction. It's a statement through example about how being similar doesn't necessarily preclude conflict, and in fairly common situations would cause it.

Conflict isn't caused by cultural difference, even though it's an easy, stupid explanation. Conflict is primarily caused by incompatible goals. When resources are scarce, incompatible goals are plenty.

Is that so ridiculous, or is the theory that if the Iranians get steeped in American culture that they'll want the Shah back the ridiculous one?

[vacri]

I don't understand why you don't see the link between an increase in cultural dissimilarity and an increase in incompatible goals. The more similar you are, the fewer incompatible goals you have.

The parent comment was a bit hyperbolic, but it wasn't absurd, and there's truth to it. Claiming that the parent meant everyone was gunning for Susan (that it, turning it into an argument about identical individuals) was absurd.

[thaumasiotes]

> The more similar you are, the fewer incompatible goals you have.

This isn't true. The more similar you are, the more incompatible goals you'll have; your culture informs your goals. Anything which is diminished in quantity when someone else partakes of it is a source of conflict, and the conflict will be greater the more people want it. Incompatible goals decrease with distance; I can honestly say that I don't care at all how various African warlords divvy things up among themselves. And though I have opinions on what public art should look like where I live, I'm happy to let people far away put up whatever weird monuments they like. There is more conflict between San Francisco workers and San Francisco poor than there is between either and anyone in Dubai.

Individuals fight over things they can't share. Demographic groups do the same. Israel isn't likely to challenge the US for Susan. But if Israel wants to see the West Bank populated by Jews, and the US wants to see it populated by Arabs, they can't both win. And if the US wants to host the world financial capital, and England is so culturally alike that it also wants to host the world financial capital, they'll fight.

[vacri]

The more similar you are, the more incompatible goals you'll have; your culture informs your goals.

You're primarily interpreting goals solely as "taking limited resource X". Nothing about political desires, entertainment desires, preferred styles of food, family structures (eg nuclear vs extended), so on and so forth.

If I like 3D movies, it doesn't put me at odds with someone else who likes 3D movies. Or, for a stronger example, if I like secular law, it does put me at odds with someone who wants sharia law. This is not something that has an exhaustible quantity - it is a difference of culture, and is one less point of friction if we ameliorate it.

Perhaps a better example. If 9/11 was due to Irish terrorists, the US public would not have signed up in the order of hundreds of thousands to invade England and topple the English government. But this is what happened to Iraq. Iraq had done absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to the US public. Yet because it was in the same geographic region as the guys responsible, the US quite happily used Iraq as a proxy to flex their might. Hell, even if the 9/11 terrorists had been English, the US still wouldn't have invaded England, unless it actually was an action of the English government. If they had been terrorists from any NATO country, that country would have been left alone.

The SF workers and the SF poor fit into the original commentor's statement. They think very much alike, but there are still points of friction where they don't. Nevertheless, they are not actually killing each other en masse - rock-throwing and protests. US and Arab cultures are not so much alike, but the US citizenry volunteers to go to the other side of the globe and kill Arabs that have not wronged them.

The more alike your cultures are, the more difficult it is to demonise the other, and the better you'll get on. Fighting over limited resource X is not the be-all and end-all of cultural dissonance.

[thaumasiotes]

This is not a stretching of the parent's position; parent specifically asks "If your enemy thinks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy?"

I'm one of several people pointing out that the question is ludicrous. Your enemies are far more likely to be quite similar to you than they are to be different. Parent's position was overwrought when it was posed, not because I did something to it.

[vacri]

The parent was talking on a demographic level. You turned it into absurdity by taking it to an individual level ('those foreigners specifically want my spouse!').

[computerJanitor]

Can a rival not be a form of enemy?

[thaumasiotes]

Indeed, that is the entire point of my comment.

[joyofdata]

The reason why the US government prevents export even of a cultural kind to countries like Cuba and Iran is to reinforce and foster the believe in americans that people from Cuba and Iran are enemies.

[true_religion]

> if your enemy thinks like you, talks like you, acts like you, shares your values and views the world the way you do, is he your enemy? Can he be your enemy? Why would he be your enemy?

Sure. Previous to the 20th century, most wars were fought over control over resources, land, and prestige.

[scottdw2]

In war, identity is a defined "negatively". That is, not by describing positive attributes to you, but by describing negative attributes to the enemy. "We are the opposite of x", hence we fight. If you neutralize the ability of the enemy to define you (because he is like you) he can't define himself, and so he cannot fight you. Thus, there is no enemy, and hence no war.

[true_religion]

I can accept that, but at the point you've already gone to war... it is pretty easy to point at any difference between you and the other country, and say that your way is better. (e.g. First World liberal democracy U.S.A looks down upon 1st world liberal democracy U.K. because U.K. has socialized healthcare thus clearly is insane).

[wozniacki]

  Sure. Previous to the 20th century, most wars were 
  fought  over control over resources, land, and 
  prestige.

Or over spurious differences like incompatible belief systems and divinities.

Spurious differences but holding a great deal of emotional charge.

edit: added quote.

[thaumasiotes]

From the 1974 The Four Musketeers:

    Porthos: I mean, what are we killing them for?
        Because they sing psalms in French, and we
        sing them in Latin?

    Aramis: Porthos, have you no education? What
        do you think religious wars are all about?

[aaronem]

"Previous to the 20th century?"

[ekianjo]

most of these were driven by governments and empires, not people. as an ndividual you have everything to lose to go to war.

[yodsanklai]

If the US wanted to help or "be friend with" all the countries they've been persecuting over the years, they could easily find cheaper and more efficient ways than what they've been doing. Clearly, the goal is not to help.

[wozniacki]

  What better path to victory then to alter 
  the mind of your enemy until he is incapable 
  of fighting you? Our educational assets ought
  to therefore be shared. To sensor them in the
  name of security is foolish.

  they could easily find cheaper and more 
  efficient ways than what they've been doing.
  Clearly, the goal is not to help.

The mind-jarring implication here is that somehow that the peoples of those nations are eager sucklings for our aid, material assistance of any kind and general goodwill.

That they would freely and openly welcome our help, without suspicion of malice or harm. [1]

[1]

Pakistan halts polio vaccination campaign in response to Islamist violence against health workers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkPDLw7E_Q

Pakistan polio vaccination under high threat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ouBgZmpnI

edit: formatting

[Elrac]

Your argument is without merit, because you're conflating concepts that don't belong together. You are telling us that some of Pakistan's leaders, including of course religious leaders, are resisting American aid in the form of polio vaccination. The rest of this discussion, though, is about offering education to individuals, not to the often dunderheaded leaders who try to control them. These are two different target groups, and ironically empowering individuals will actually help de-legitimize the leaders we have a problem with.

Since you chose the example of polio vaccinations, I think it would be fair to mention that Pakistani leaders have an excellent reason to oppose polio vaccinations. It turns out, and you can easily Google for this, that the CIA set up a fake vaccination program in Pakistan to get a hold of Bin Laden's DNA.

It's bad enough that there are false allegations, mostly religion-based, against Western medical intervention in these countries. But to actively feed this distrust by abusing what little trust these people had, just to accomplish a public symbolic victory over a terrorist organization, was an utterly despicable act on part of the US administration.

[127]

I don't operate on the assumption that the US government wants to be friends with the aforementioned countries. I see it more as a political game. If they wanted for friendly relationships, they would do as you described. It's obvious, and a reason why I think the US goals are not in line with being friendly with those countries.

[zmk_]

I agree, for conflicts to escalate wars to be had there needs to be a clear division into "us" and "them". Due to educational efforts like these people are on the same page, their mobility increases, I would even venture that it makes it more probable for people to seek economic connections with the outside world too. It's like France and Germany -- you can keep the us/them divide and have a war every few decades or you can tie their future together (Coal and Steel, EEC, EU) and they will have too much to lose not to be nice to one another.

[Elrac]

Further to what you said, it has been pointed out that (with very few exceptions, meanwhile) there has never been a war between two countries that both had MacDonald's franchises.

[rayiner]

While many American leaders paint this as an ideological war, it's not, or at least not primarily an ideological war. America is just a country, looking out for its best interest, as is the sovereign right of all countries to do. We have no obligation to help other countries if we don't want to, or share with them information if we believe they threaten our security. We have no obligation to educate them or lift them up.

Our objective is not to win these countries over. It is to keep them from posing a threat to our oil supply, key allies, etc.

[fmavituna]

Maybe they've got petrol, then they are your enemy.