site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Convince the locals to declare independence.

Reuters:

U.S. officials have discussed sending lump sum payments to Greenlanders as part of a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the United States, according to four sources familiar with the matter.

While the exact dollar figure and logistics of any payment are unclear, U.S. officials, including White House aides, have discussed figures ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, said two of the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The idea of directly paying residents of Greenland, an overseas territory of Denmark, offers one explanation of how the U.S. might attempt to "buy" the island of 57,000 people, despite authorities' insistence in Copenhagen and Nuuk that Greenland is not for sale.

One of the sources familiar with White House deliberations said the internal discussions regarding lump sum payments were not necessarily new. However, that person said, they had gotten more serious in recent days, and aides were entertaining higher values, with a $100,000-per-person payment—which would result in a total payment of almost $6 billion—a real possibility.

Among the possibilities being floated by Trump's aides, a White House official said on Tuesday, is trying to enter into a type of agreement with the island called a Compact of Free Association.

The precise details of COFA agreements—which have only ever been extended to the small island nations of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau—vary depending on the signatory. But the U.S. government typically provides many essential services, such as mail delivery and military protection. In exchange, the U.S. military operates freely in COFA countries, and trade with the U.S. is largely duty-free.

6 billion is a rounding error in the defense budget, so they could go even higher. 100K is not life changing money though as Greenlands median incomes are rather high.

If it's anything like Nunavut, the cost of living there is extremely high.

I must admit, I had not heard this was an official position. Regardless, an offer to bribe the people runs into three problems:

  1. The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing, to account for the uncertainty inherent in a regime change.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

For 2, there's a specific problem- Greenlandic whaling. This is uncontroversial in the Nordics(mainland Danes don't personally do any, but they're more than happy to permit it elsewhere, and the Nordics are the most prolific whalers in the world aside from Japan), but in the USA....

Inuit whale in the US as well.

The money promised must be significantly more than what Denmark is currently providing

One article indicates that Denmark's current subsidies are a bit more than 10 k$ per person-year.

Which would be worth about $200,000 per person in net present value.

Yeah. none of this is insurmountable, just very expensive. The question becomes how much the US is willing to pay.