You spin a fairly convincing narrative. Together with some of the other commenters here, such as @naraburns and @Totalitarianit i now have a better sense of why the US would want to own the country, rather than simply having a military Prescence there. As well as how ownership would further her military goals. This has certainly been educational.
Bombadil
30m ago
In the hypothethical situation where the Trump administration expends a significant amount of resources to acquire Greenland, something that the US has wanted to do for more than a hundred years, would there even be a mandate to give it back while receiving nothing in return? I imagine the sunk cost would be way too high to justify.
Hell, would Denmark even want it back? It is possible that she is defending Greenland mostly out of a sense of duty and national pride. But not having to subsidize the population might end up being enough of a boon for the mainland to not want that responsibility back years after finally losing it.
Bombadil
6hr ago
Militarily speaking, what would acquiring Greenland do to limit the risks you lay out here? They have military bases there, and the other NATO countries also believe in climate change and have an interest in keeping the area under control. Denmark has a tendency to cede American requests for military presence, so why can't the US meet their goals without acquiring Greenland and throwing their alliances into question?
Bombadil
6hr ago
Retaliation for the tariffs. Back in 2025 when Trump threatened tariffs left and right, EU leaders stated that it would retaliate as one body if even a single country was targeted. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/22/europe-has-a-trade-bazooka-against-trumps-trade-tariffs.html
Bombadil
8hr ago
Yeah. none of this is insurmountable, just very expensive. The question becomes how much the US is willing to pay.
Bombadil
9hr ago
This ignores the threat of sanctions resulting in retaliation from the EU, which could cause real economic damage to the US. If it was this easy, the administration would have already done it.
Bombadil
9hr ago
I must admit, I had not heard this was an official position. Regardless, an offer to bribe the people runs into three problems:
- The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing, to account for the uncertainty inherent in a regime change.
- The Inuits currently live under pretty favorable conditions in that they have a lot of autonomy. Those conditions might change as the US takes over, which is something the payment would have to account for.
- Low trust in the US. The current administration seems to use every piece of leverage they have to get what they want, and are clearly willing to disregard international law if following it would be contrary to their interests. If they do acquire Greenland, what is going to stop them from going back on any promises they made, once Denmark and the other European countries are no longer in a position to bail the Inuits out?
The new thing here is that the US is no longer trying to work together with the EU and NATO countries. It used to be that these bodies were responsible for enforcing UN laws in the world. Now, the US is putting immense strain on its alliances and trying to go at it alone, going so far as to threaten an ally. As a result, the rules are changing. When the main enforcer of international laws ceases to enforce them, international law no longer exists.
As for Greenland, there is a significant difference between having military bases there and officially being in charge. Right now, the US has no sway over local laws, and Denmark is subsidizing the population. Both of these things would change with a takeover.
USA really, seriously wants to own Greenland.
Trump has made this extremely clear ever since his first presidency when he first offered to buy the island from the Danish government. At the time, the Danes made it very clear that this was not possible. They could not legally sell the island, and if they could, it still would not be for sale. This presidency, he has been probing around, trying to find an effective strategy that can give the administration what they want. He made that clear in 2025 by essentially stating that no tactic is off the table. He has since attempted the following:
- Threaten a military takeover. He did this by stating that military intervention was not considered off the table.This was shut down by European leaders promising to retaliate.
- Convince the locals to declare independence. In reality, independence for Greenland means choosing a new master (thus creating an obvious opportunity for the US), as their current society cannot survive without subsidies from a wealthier nation. However, the administration failed to convince the Inuits. I suspect they might return to this strategy in the future though, if the current one does not work.
- Currently, the administration is attempting to use the situation in Venezuela as leverage. They are showing that the threats of invasion were not empty, using the implication to frighten the relevant parties into submission. Once again, European leaders have, through indicating support for Denmark, threatened retaliation if the US invades. I suspect this will be enough to deter the administration once more. Although if Europe had not been supportive and instead let Denmark stand alone, I do not doubt that America would be planning an invasion right now.
This begs the question though: Why does the US want Greenland so badly? It is a frozen rock in the middle of the ocean, with an entire population living off government subsidies. Why not just let Denmark pay the bill while the states keep their bases? I have some ideas below, ordered from what I think makes the least sense to the most:
- It is a hedge against global warming. As the earth grows hotter, Greenland will become increasingly habitable, making the island much more valuable as other landmasses are swallowed by the ocean.
- Real estate for data centers. The island is cold and remote, with a lot of empty space and rare earths in the ground. To my layman's knowledge though, construction of the necessary infrastructure would be ludicrously expensive, even though the land itself might be cheap. Still, I would not put it past the likes of Elon Musk to try something like this anyway.
- To secure the North Atlantic against military threats. This seems like the official reason, but I don't really buy it. America already has military bases on Greenland, and I do not see why the military could not simply send more equipment and personnel there if the government wanted a larger presence. No official ownership necessary. If this is wrong, then I invite any other commenter to correct me.
- To control the rare earths. Rare earths are a priority of the Trump administration, and even though extracting them is supposedly ridiculously expensive, the mere possibility of another country (China) gaining access to them might be enough to warrant official occupation. This way, the US government, not the Inuits, would be in control of who is allowed to mine there.
- It is in the American "Sphere of Influence". It is possible that the world order is turning towards one in which Great Powers (USA, Russia, China, and maybe the EU) hold influence over the smaller countries in their vicinity. The smaller countries remain sovereign and independent as long as they operate in the interest of their great power. In this scenario, the USA views all of the Americas as being under her sphere of influence, including Canada and Greenland. These countries will either bow to their leader or suffer her wrath.
- The purpose is to secure Trump's (and more broadly, the Republican's) legacy as president. Trump clearly cares a lot about his image, with the most recent example being how hard he has tried to win the Nobel Peace price. Successfully expanding the nation's territory with the world's largest island would go down in the history books, cementing this administration as potentially the greatest one since world war 2.
Bombadil
3d ago
This is also partly a communication issue, no? The woman either failed to communicate what she wants from the man, or the man did not listen or understand when she did so.
Had the man not watched porn but still been abstaining from sex for decades, he would also not know how to satisfy a woman. So you get the same experience of the woman leaving unsatisfied. The main difference would be that the abstainer probably has fewer preconceptions, so maybe he will be more careful. But that does not directly correlate with being better at sex.
I grew up being taught the ideals of a rules-based world where the US stood for international law based on western values. Besides, conservatives tend to use the sovereignty of nations as an argument against globalism. I assumed the argument against foreign aid programs was one of sovereignty. Each country is responsible for their own people. Perhaps most importantly, I was under the impression that being anti-war was a really important part of Trump's campaign. I genuinely believed that was a big reason for people to vote for him.
It seems my desire to be charitable may have led me to wrong conclusions, which have now been corrected. At least until further evidence presents itself.
Bombadil
5d ago
America has bombed another sovereign nation. This is literally starting a war with a country that was not a military threat to the US, and (at least to my knowledge) were not at all at risk of going to war themselves. Even if it turns out to be short-lived, this starts a war that would have not otherwise occurred. The literal opposite of peace. I would suggest that people who support this are not anti-war at all. They are anti-losing, anti-spending-lots-of-money-on-prolonged-conflicts, pro-US-can-do-whatever-it-wants, and they clearly do not care about the sovereignty of other countries.
You argue that this intervention was needed but do not explain why. Until I gain a satisfying explanation of why this attack was necessary and worthwhile, I will be forced to believe in the above.
I am curious: Trump campaigned on being anti-war, and has attempted to brand himself as a peacemaker this past year. Will starting a war be what drives his supporters away from him? Or will this be considered largely justified?
I could see a world where it is spun as being the best way to spend American resources in the interest of the people, in some roundabout way furthering "America First". But would the voters really buy that?
Bombadil
14d ago
So master morality in the end optimizes for the things you own, which means celebrating actions that we consider immoral. Because that is often the fastest way to own as much stuff as possible. Fair enough.
What I really want is not to bring that back then; What you describe seems like society would be regressing by centuries. Instead, I want to hold people and institutions to some kind of standard. Celebrate the people who put in effort, look down on those who do not. Surely that much is possible. In that case, what is needed is for society to agree on a new moral system. One that incentivizes effort and celebrates success and beauty, while still punishing those who gain wealth by trampling others.
Bombadil
15d ago
I think it depends in how strict we are with our definitions of master morality. If saving children is considered neutral, having possessions is virtuous, and losing possessions means losing virtue then yeah, you are right. But consider another perspective: You will not save every child on earth, but you will save every kid in your local community. This way you are perhaps still losing a lot of possessions. Your nice suit, the money you had in your wallet when jumping into the pond, maybe you invest in people to watch the shores and so on. But in return, you become a pillar of the community. Someone that people look up to because you embody a kind of intrinsic worth. Meanwhile, your community is enriched by the presence of young people which over time can make you more virtuous. They might buy stuff from you and make you richer. You might compete with them and win.
Same goes for the virtuous warlord. From one perspective, the virtue comes from your conquests through slaughter. From another, the virtue is in your ability to best others. In that case, the virtue is there whether you choose to fight or not. If there is no just cause for a war, then you can surely use your abilities in different ways that benefit your people and still shows how virtuous you are in that sense.
Bombadil
27d ago
The effectiveness of agree-and-amplify is context dependent though. It makes sense in dating because the two of you are not discussing the merits of whatever insult the woman throws at you. You are either showing how you handle a curveball, or you are simply both joking around and having fun by making absurd statements.
I would argue it makes a lot less sense when one party is entirely serious about the insult. If the girl genuinely believes that big truck = small dick, agreeing and amplifying will just make her think she is correct.
A debate setting is serious, and it is expected that both parties argue in good faith. In that situation, agree and amplify will either convince the viewers that the accusations are correct or show them that you do not care about the rules of the debate. If one party defects this way, then the intellectual value is pretty much lost. From my perspective, either Nick Fuentes is an actual racist or he is so obtuse that I cannot know what his views are, because at any point he might be joking.
So the only thing he manages to do is show of his authority or his frame, by showing the viewers that he is composed even when under pressure while managing to throw off the frame of his opponent. I admit this is a good goal to have in a debate, but it doesn't do much for me personally when he otherwise comes off as either racist or untrustworthy.
Bombadil
1mo ago
I think a lot of people were taught growing up that society is run by a set of rules and if you follow those, if you are a good person in that sense, then you will be rewarded and life will work out. The realization that the rules are not what you were taught, if any hard rules at all even exist, is crushing. Especially if you believe that Bonnie Blue is not contributing much to society at all, even compared to the warehouse worker.
Bombadil
1mo ago
There must be other reasons. I sincerely doubt the average man is that paranoid about false accusations. Most people assume that tragedies always happen to other people, not themselves and I don't see why this should be different for accusations of pedophilia.
Internet commenters tend to be a lot more anxious than ordinary people and thus you see the false accusation points a lot online. But "internet commenters" is not exactly the group I would imagine as volunteering to quite literally touch grass regardless. So the answer should probably be found elsewhere.
Bombadil
1mo ago
Cyrus is elected as king, then performs the exact roles one would expect of a king. The son of Artembares regrets his decision and decides to try and change the game by casting doubt on the king.
I would think that the latter kid shows far more agency than the first, who simply follows the rules.
Now, what did the kids not named Cyrus learn from this game? Did the game make them more agentic or less? After electing the king, didn't they simply follow his commands?
I would suggest that in your example you are not teaching agency to the kids. You are teaching them to fall in line and follow a strict hierarchy that once set cannot be broken. You are creating one king and a legion of servants.
Bombadil
1mo ago
The question is if the AI will reliably do what Grandma wants it to. When she asks it to change the font size, will it do so, or will it suggest she just keeps the current font size because this is the "recommended" setting and thus the best? How much will she have to argue with it to get it to be actually useful, given that she is definitely not a prompt engineer?
You also better hope that your tech illiterate users are still tech literate enough to not see the AI as an actual person with feelings and real ability to learn and grow over time. Otherwise, they might believe everything it tells them, completely uncritically.
Besides, there is the issue that this solution, if it works, will just make people even less tech literate than they already are. Computers are a huge aspect of peoples lives. Why is Microsoft not making documentation good and readily available enough for people to learn how to become proficient at using it?
Bombadil
1mo ago
Oh, I see. Yeah I suppose that is another instance to lay on the pile. I wonder if it would have given a similar answer last year, or if it has been altered to not offend the leadership.
Bombadil
1mo ago
The examples i was thinking of were Mecha hitler, Deepseek refusing to talk about the Tiannanmen square massacre, and Google making it impossible to generate white people with Gemini.
Bombadil
1mo ago
In my experience, the environmentalist concerns plus the association with billionaires means that the vast majority of left-wingers I have met dislike AI and hope it falls apart. On the other hand, people sure do like using it, so I guess it is possible that the hatred is in some cases only skin-deep.
Microsoft is trying to transform Windows into an agentic OS. Apparently, this means Injecting copilot into the operating system to the point where you can just ask it how to do something and it tells you exactly how to do it. Just follow its instructions, no need to know anything yourself.
I guess the argument is that it will make Windows easier to use for non-technical people. Of course, there is a multitude of problems with this:
The culture war angle:
The left absolutely hates AI. It is built by multi-billionaires looking to replace our jobs so they don't have to pay us and can take all the planet's resources for themselves. Every time AI is added to consumer products, the consumer is increasingly placed in the control of its owner. AI is known to be biased, and we have already seen the tech giants attempt to inject their own bias into them. So not only are we seeing a development in the wrong direction, we are becoming increasingly vulnerable to lies and manipulation by the most powerful in society. This is without even going into the monumental costs of training the models, and the opportunity cost from not spending the resources on other areas that would be more directly helpful to humans.
The AI doomers are afraid of AI takeover. This seems like a step towards that. A chief argument against the AI doomer scenarios has been something like "who would be dumb enough to place AI in control of key systems?" Well, Windows, apparently. While it is true that in their add, it is still the user making the final decision as to which settings to choose, it seems to me that a super-intelligent AI would be capable of manipulating most users into choosing exactly the settings best suited for the AI to manipulate them further. Besides, if this becomes a commercial success, then more is sure to follow. At least, you would expect Google and Apple to follow up, making all the mainstream OS's infected with the kind of intelligence that could ultimately destroy us.
The AI skeptics believe that AI is not going to improve much in the near future. As such, this is a misstep of moronic proportions. You even see it in the add: The user asks the AI to increase his font size. It suggests he changes the scale setting, which is currently at 150%. When asked what percentage he should change it to, the AI responds with 150%, as this is the recommended setting. The result? Nothing changes, because the setting is kept at default. Wait no, the user went against the AI's wishes and picked 200%, seemingly hoping that you would not spot this stupid mishap. If the actual marketing material is damaged by AI hallucination, how bad is the final product going to be? Are you going to have to argue with your AI until it finally does what you want? This is probably going to push more power users over to Linux, as the agent does not give them the fine control over their systems that they want. Meanwhile, it might actually make the experience worse for Grandma, who is gaslit into picking suboptimal settings for herself by an unhelpful machine.
Finally, if you are concerned about AI and mental health, you have probably heard of AI-induced psychosis. The usage of chatbots by a small minority of vulnerable people has apparently fed into their delusions, resulting in psychosis-related behavior. An agentic OS that at best requires the user to opt out of AI functionality, places the chatbot right in the user's face. While a therapist today could instruct her patients to avoid seeking out the chatbots, that is hardly possible when the main way to use your operating system is through an LLM. If copilot is on by default, or if other ways to use the system is slowly deprecated making it harder to use without the bot, I would expect this change to result in more cases of diagnosable mental health conditions.
NATO has sent troops into sovereign countries as the result of security council decisions in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations). In addition, the US and EU have enforced sanctions in unison against countries who threatened the established world order, attempting to force them into compliance. This is not nothing, and this era is currently changing in front of our eyes.
More options
Context Copy link