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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception.
I agree. (Sorry for the edit, I misread you there)
But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics. And just because Luther rejected the Catholic church doesn't mean (especially American) Protestantism isn't a throwback to the agrarian age.
However, my basic criticism is much simpler: I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others.
Communitarianism is definitely distinct from authoritarianism, for the same reason that regulated capitalism or socialist democracy isn't intrinsically "less free" than anarcho-libertarianism. Many people believe, on both the right and the left, that the imposition of rules on individuals by the community can lead to more actual freedom than a scenario in which individuals act without restrictions.
Now, whether American religious communities display more of the characteristics of communitarianism or authoritarianism is a matter of opinion.
> But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics.
And my point is that American Christianity focuses on the person relationship with God, and not an authoritarian framework, while Islam in Islamic countries tends to focus on the authoritarian framework. American pastors by and large do not get in front of their congregations and say "do this and don't do this, otherwise you'll burn in hell." To most American Christians, that's not the function of religion in their lives. But in most Muslim countries, that is the function of religion. They don't eat pork because their Imam says not to. They wear headscarves because their Imam says to. The relationship with God is also important, but the regulatory framework derived from religious text as interpreted by religious authorities is also very important.
You're entitled to believe that the ethical framework of American Christianity is questionable, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. And you're welcome to believe that American Protestantism is a conservative throwback, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. Believe it or not, free thinking people can find their own way to conservative ideas, and free communities can impose conservative rules on their members because they feel it will enhance their collective prosperity, not just because some authority figure tells them to.
> I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others.
You've moved the goalposts quite a bit, from asserting that American society is essentially authoritarian in the same way as Islamic society, to making a generic criticism of religion. Religion = bad, and America and Saudi Arabia, etc, have lots of religious people, and that's bad. Right? You're ignoring that the function and nature of religion between the two societies is very different.
> American pastors by and large do not get in front of their congregations and say "do this and don't do this, otherwise you'll burn in hell."
Yes and no. There are certainly "liberal" and "community" focused Christian churches.
But there is also, and proudly, a very distinct, baptist/fundamental/born again Christian tract that absolutely is driven by the stereotyped "angry man preaching fire and brimstone" to a chorus of Amens and Hallelujahs. People who believe that "gentle and caring" Christianity, not to mention atheism and hedonism, are what are wrong with the world, and only a vengeful God, and those not afraid to tell the hard word, is the only "solution".
"Liberal" is the church I was at last month where the pastor said you couldn't be Christian and Republican at the same time. But short of that is the mushy middle of mainstream Christian churches that nonetheless stay away from the fire and brimstone stuff, if only because there's not much of a market for it in most places. Think about it: sex outside of marriage is almost universal in the U.S. There are only so many people who will do that, but then go to a church that tells them they'll go to hell for doing that. Your random Bible Church in the suburbs is not spouting this stuff.
> Communitarianism is definitely distinct from authoritarianism
I agree, see above. I misread your statement where your point was instead to imply that whatever the truth, I lack the capability of determining it. ;)
I allege both are at work, but only due to the fact that its Communitarianism is a very shallow self categorization, a glorified self image. As a whole, I think American society is rather exclusive, it's religiously controlled and does have strong authoritarian traits in my opinion, but I already said why.
To give one example why I think Communitarianism is self-deceptive: the group of people who tend to be against creating social support structures are without fail religious conservatives. Health care, welfare, development programs, you name it - they're against it. It may well be true that they believe those same functions should be administered through the local church community, but that doesn't exactly make their intentions any less deplorable.
The fact that last week the whole community helped poor old Mrs Smith clean up her yard doesn't make up for rejecting the funding of more social workers.
> You've moved the goalposts quite a bit
Granted. I felt it necessary to come back to the original point in the original post, since we have drifted quite a bit in an effort to "correctly" label American Protestantism. Making a generalized criticism of religion was my central point, talking about the perceived similarities between the American and the Muslim system was only an extension of it.
When I expressed a hope that education could lead rationalism and humanism, I was implying that it could do so by healing away religious ignorance.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> If you believe a caricature to be literally true how are you not confused?
You're right, now I am confused.
> I suspect many know it is not anywhere near true but enjoy anything that paints the powerful US in a bad light.
It's interesting that you perceived my post to be like that. It's not meant to be. Sadly, the US doesn't need any help to appear in a bad light, and again the same goes for the Muslim world by the way. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.
I think it's more difficult to hear criticism coming from your friends than from your enemies. That's because your enemies have questionable motives. But your friends just worry about you and your destructive influence on yourself as well as your surroundings. That's exactly how many Europeans feel, I guess. Well, at least that's how I feel.
There are much bigger problems with the US than how religious it is currently. Gitmo is a disgrace, healthcare is a mess, keep running deficits. Being too religious is the least of the problems. The US is flawed, but it is not a theocracy despite what Europeans may believe.
I think the hope expressed here was that more education could result in a reduction of ridiculous religious ideas that currently take up the same space where the will for social and economic reforms should be.
It's not a theocracy, but it's still a militaristic country run by the religious right. Leading to all the things you complained about, and more.
> 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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!').
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: I work for Coursera as a Software Engineer.
We have already lifted restrictions for Syrians as the OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) has a general license for educational content (Syria General License No. 11A) issued. We are working with the State Department and OFAC for licenses or exemptions for the other affected countries and we hope to get the remaining blocks lifted soon.
This is good. I hope you manage to do the same for Iran, Cuba and so forth. Education is just too important, and there is a net gain for the US from giving out these opportunities. Somebody learning on a US-centric english-language site is likely to be an Americophile.
Should you get nowhere regarding Cuba and Iran, it might not even be too bad to forward a link to this discussion to sympathetic people at the State Department. I think we have a nice tech-community oppiniometer and some interesting talking points here.
Obviously it's easy to hypothesise; however, if I were in your shoes, I would like to think that I would simply refuse to cooperate, and I can't help but feel that would be the more effective course of action, since there's probably no technical obstacle to serving packets to these countries.
Like others, though, I'm glad to hear you're doing something about it. Well done.
Understand if you can't discuss but my inference was that this was triggered by Coursera accepting money for their classes.
Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera’s course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions in sanctioned countries
We unfortunately cannot accept payment from students in these countries but we were advised recently that even providing free educational content as a service would fall under export control regulations.
I was wondering about the consequences of breaking the restrictions, e.g. how severe are the penalties? I would love to read that as a headline in a newspaper "US Gov. sues free education provider for educating people in x".
wikipedia's not the best source but from my limited experience this is in the right magnitude, with the key thing being $55k per violation. That can add up quickly depending on how its interpreted.
Criminal penalties for violating the embargo range up to ten years in prison, $1 million in corporate fines, and $250,000 in individual fines; civil penalties up to $55,000 per violation.
There are a small list of countries for which the US has a pretty comprehensive ban on doing business in/with. For these countries, the rule is "no" unless there has been a specific exception made to allow some particular kind of business.
There is a much larger list of countries for which there are partial bans covering specific items or services, at least without getting some kind of license. With these countries, the rule is "yes" unless you are dealing with a kind of business that has been specifically restricted.
The article, and most of the comments here so far, make it sound like we are dealing with the second situation, and Coursera's type of business has been added to the restricted list.
That does not seem to be the case. The countries involved are in the first group, where the default in the US is "do not do business with" unless there has been an exception made for your business. (By the way, that's also how it has been in the EU for most of these countries until fairly recently. I believe the EU has been transitioning them to the second group, where they will have a set of specific areas that are restricted).
The US appears to actually be OK with offering MOOCs in these countries. There is already an exception in the first group for Syria that allows Coursera to offer courses there, and they have restored access. They are now working to get exceptions for the other countries, and from what they say on their blog it sounds like the State Department is going to be OK with this.
Why doesn't the US pursue the blue-jeans approach do diplomacy any more? You know, give them blue-jeans, fast-food and rock'n roll, so they will become like us instead of hate us.
I know this works, since it has been applied in my home country (Germany) to astonishing results.
This incident als further highlights that we (speaking of Europeans now) need non-US based online services. Remember the last big Paypal scandal, when all online-retailers that sold Cuban rum had their accounts frozen?
German citizen here.. we kinda "got lucky" the whole cold war thing started right out of the ashes after 45, otherwise Germany would probably have remained a barren wasteland or become merely a major agricultural Allied asset. Instead with the cold war emerging, both sides pushed many resources into propping up their respective "showcase" of their respective system. The official narrative was also along the lines of "tough vengeance didn't help us the last time (WW1) with regards to Germany so let's try something different and more fundamental this time", doubtlessly a common and widespread belief at the time too.
Blue jeans and chewing gum only entered the picture after the war, after all, not during ;)
I imagine if the US invaded Cuba, Syria, Iran and Cuba, wrote them new constitutions, had massive buy in from local supporters/collaborators, had large military bases in them almost 60 years later and had almost total access to the communications of all members of government and ministries that would work even better than blue jeans diplomacy.
You are missing the point (though I share your criticism of things as they are).
No country in recent history has been so thorroughly defeated both in military terms and in ideology as Germany. It would have been _incredibly_ easy to dole out severe punishment on Germany after WW2 (let's say, massive economic reparations, a ban on heavy industry, exclusion from public office/certain professions for any past member of the NSDAP). Some things like that were on the table.
Google Morgenthau plan.
Had that happened, I can assure you that either, we'd have had another big war within Europe by now, or (West-)Germany would have drifted towards the Soviet Union, or both.
Instead there was economic upswing and americanization. We became rich, we became fat, and we became disinterested in German nationalism and revenge (for injustices real and even moreso imagined).
had massive buy in from local supporters/collaborators
Government control by foreign invaders is not conducive to massive buy-in from local supporters before "blue jeans diplomacy" has already worked. It's complete ahistorical fantasy to think otherwise.
I don't know man, it worked pretty well for the Romans and everywhere they speak Arabic now they didn't in the 600s A.D.
Also, Communist Romania. The first five-ishyears of that were pretty relaxed because there were, for practical purposes, no Romanian Communists to be put in power;they needed to make some first. And Romania only fell because the Soviets did.
Recently I made an argument to a buddy of mine that US should continue the drone program, but instead of bombs, drop on people chocolate bars in a shape of the American flag (weather permitting, in hotter climates we might have to opt for other patriotically shaped treats). It's cheeper, and probably far more effective at making people like (or at least hate less) the United States.
This article is yet another example of idiotic foreign policy US has been pursuing lately.
We already drop food -- MREs, essentially, whose meat entrees have been replaced with a variety of heavily leguminous, thus protein-rich, entrees intended to be compatible with almost all religious dietary restrictions. They're called "humanitarian daily rations", which isn't as cannibalistic as it sounds, and they're decorated with American propaganda -- the packaging says "Food Gift from the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" and the like.
People whose nations we've occupied, though, unaccountably fail to love us even though we help feed them. Perhaps you're right, and it's just a question of sugar content.
Or we could drop little stuffed drone dolls, so kids could grow up with their very own pet drone and not be scared by them. Pretty soon the kids will have nothing but endearing things to say about their friends in the sky.
>...kids could grow up with their very own pet drone and not be scared by them. Pretty soon the kids will have nothing but endearing things to say about their friends in the sky.
Hey, they are not "stuffed" but apart from that this idea sounds pretty much like what they are doing right now in the US: Military drones are made as toys for children.
Much as the dolls that little girls play with predate the emergence of humanity (girl chimpanzees care for sticks as if they were babies), it seems safe to say that toys based on weapons have been around for tens of thousands of years at least.
The majority of Iran already likes us. The 5% of religious extremists control the govt. and oppress the people. They are the only ones who dont like us.
Whoever controls the public discourse gains in the long run. What do you think Iran would look like today if local information policies hadn't been counterbalanced by the internet for the last ten years?
I distinctly remember The Daily Show sending somebody to Teheran to ask people in the street if they new the show and they found quite a bunch who said yes!
So IMO you are right, but only as long as Iran is well-integrated in the internet. Guess which 5% of Iran realized this recently.
This is a fantasy pushed by people (contractors) trying to justify invasion. The majority of the college educated professional middle class in Iran likes traditional US rhetoric about democracy, capitalism, and our particular list of individual civil liberties.
Not only are the professional middle class not a majority of the population, and within them are not unanimous about US-style government, but to say that they like the actual US and its actual current behavior is IMO an unsustainable stretch.
It always has to be remembered that it was largely the religious extremists of Iran that freed Iran from the yoke of the US - who might have believed in democracy for itself, but not for Iran.
Give some context - Iran shares half of its borders with politically unstable countries, one of which has nuclear weapons. All of Germany's neighbours are extremely stable; they have better scope to look further afield for threats.
You misread me. Germans are safe from their immediate neighbours. Iranians are not. I'm not surprised that Iranians don't see the US as the most threatening thing around, especially given an unstable Pakistan with nuclear capabilities is right next door.
And the very reason why I so dislike Civ V: in Civ IV, you could use culture to literally take over the world, as your cultural influence could slowly convert other players's territories and cities to you. And the culture bomb was a magnificent thing.
In Civ V, at best they like you, and worst (and more commonly) your cultural achievements will just make them hate you even more.
Partly fixed in BNW with Tourism/Ideology mechanics. Sadly unfixed by the ease with which one gets a diplomatic victory on anything less than Immortal.
If someone is 'the protector of freedom' and if 'the protector of freedom' is someone that doesn't boycott Syria, then that leaves Japan, South Korea, Australia and countries who's government don't make decisions based upon enlightenment values.
For EU, the amount of trade is reduced, it's not actually "banned." I also don't see that having an internet site with free access can be interpreted as "trade" in EU.
Cognitive dissonance isn't much of a problem. The problem is lack of education. You have to know about the ridiculous things the US does in order to experience cognitive dissonance.
Are you even serious? "US regime" not allowing somebody to access a website? Talk about a first world problem. I don't see you complaining about Cuban, Iranian, etc regimes who forced these sanctions in the first place.
This isn't very nice thing to do... Deny education to people who don't have any power to do changes in their country. Let's keep them stupid, now they will know how to play with us. Great attitude.
I guess Coursera could publicly denounce this particular type of government policy and set up UK puppet company just to deliver courses to those countries.
I don't understand why people are surprised. There are loads of education topics that are off limits. You can't get a VISA if you are studying certain hot topics, particularly those that can be weaponized.
Are people really arguing for Bashar al Assad's right to study molecular biology?
Why would you educate the engineers of an enemy state on how to build smart weapons? Even if a 20 year old left leaning engineer doesn't want to hurt anybody now, who knows where a lucrative career path will direct them in 10 years time.
My immediate assumption was this is not the US is trying to restrict education.
I suspect this was triggered by Coursera accepting money. The US has laws against doing business with certain countries. When Coursera started offering signature track classes where they charged money they are now doing business with restricted regimes.
I have been surprised that there is no discussion of your initial point, that there are very rational reasons why a state might want to control access to educational material. Sure maybe offering people will lead to greater humanity ... or maybe it will lead to terrorists who can build sophisticated drone bombs. I don't know but I'm surprised it not a more prominent issue.
Most Coursera courses are intro/first-year level, not exactly smart weapon material.
Are people really arguing for Bashar al Assad's right to study molecular biology?
Because all Syrians are just like him?
You know, it tends to be the educated people who are more against war and destruction. The higher the level of education of the population, the less it wants to go to war.
Coursera is a for profit company. It has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with trade between is and embargoed countries. I'm not saying that I like it, I would like to see a safe harbor for educational institutions, but that's the way the law is written and these things don't change quickly
Questions no American (elected) politician can answer honestly:
- why is Cuba one of the four countries in the blacklist and not other totalitarian regimes like China etc?
- why is Marijuana illegal for the most part and not alcohol?
- have the Palestinians the right to defend themselves?
Coursera could establish an Office in Europe and accept foreign students from there, if there is a interesting market. The whole e-learning thing, is interesting and seems to be kind of exploding. I'm not sure about the quality though
Robert Fischer - and the US revoking his passport, officially because of him playing a chess match in Serbia thus breaking the embargo - comes to mind.
Yep lot's of google services, like app engine, also AWS and almost anything Sun/Oracel, (even for time, I dont know if it is still the case) you could not download mysql, or java updates from Iran,
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.