[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]

There is much that I agree with in this comment. However, I need to push back on

> for a stronger example, if I like secular law, it does put me at odds with someone who wants sharia law

I'm making the point that this is only true if you happen to share space with that other person. Right now you're getting along famously with millions of people who want sharia law, because they're safely far away in a different jurisdiction.

Cultural differences, even vast ones, are neither necessary nor sufficient to provoke conflict (although they definitely make it easier). Disputes over limited resources such as, say, Strasb(o)urg, aren't necessary either, but they can be sufficient.

Having said that, I'll repeat that I largely agree with your comment.

[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.