= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ksvanhorn comments on When None Dare Urge Restraint, pt. 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (91)
That would mean that if the United States of America does not use this language, we will lose our wars and be defeated by a foe that IS willing to use such biased language. That... seems like a VERY strong assertion to make without any actual evidence.
Certainly, it might lower overall military recruitment costs, or improve troop efficiency, but has anyone ever studied this? How much would accurate information cost us? How much damage is being done because we're stuck in traditions of inaccurate communication? It's a fairly simple equation, but filling out the variables is far from a casual armchair exercise, I think.
I am not aware of any systematic attempt to study these things. My own opinion is formed from a somewhat casual reading of Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist, Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel and Collapse, and probably a few other books that don't leap to mind. These books have plenty of citation of studies if you are interested.
I think you would be hard pressed to find any existing "significant" country that does not engender a strong belief in patriotism among its populace, which does not lionize especially those who have given their lives in wars on behalf of the country. If you can think of any significant counter examples among the 50 richest or 50 most populous countries, please let me know. I am essentially hypothesizing that the scarcity of genteel foreigner-loving pacifist countries among the richest and most populous is not a mere coincidence.
You're begging the question here, by slipping in the assumption that these wars are "on behalf of the country," rather than on behalf of the executive (e.g. president), on behalf of some vested interest, or just colossal f*-ups. To repeat what the author said,
"If a death is just a tragedy... [y]ou have to acknowledge that yes, really, ... thousands of people -- even the Good Guy's soldiers! -- might be dying for no good reason at all."