site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   22100 thread views

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

"All of the above," basically. In particular, this is the best article I read last year when this topic was kicking around.

What various pearl-clutching reporters expressing confusion (and disdain) on the topic seem to miss is that China has been working toward its own control of Greenland for years:

Over the past seven years, China has attempted to grow its footprint in the region through scientific research expeditions, infrastructure investments, and natural resource acquisitions. By most metrics, the strategy has failed to take off, as major projects continue to be blocked due to security concerns. But China’s continued interest in Greenland reflects the island’s geostrategic importance—and China’s global lead in rare earth mining and processing expertise keeps the U.S. adversary on the table as a potential future mining partner in Greenland. Greenland’s minister of business and mineral resources warned that while Western partnerships are preferred, without an influx of investment, Greenland will have to turn to other partners, including China. Already, Chinese rare earth company Shenghe Resources is the largest shareholder in the Kvanefjeld mine, with 12.5 percent ownership. Shenghe signed an MOU in 2018 to lead the processing and marketing of materials extracted from the site.

This is almost refreshingly straightforward game theory in action; America could only afford to be lazy about the strategic importance of Greenland as long as China was lazy about the strategic importance of Greenland. As you say--we have bases there, it's NATO territory, why talk about control now? The answer is: because Greenland is cheerfully taking Chinese money and our current options are "do something about that" or "don't do something about that."

I remember when Trump created the Space Force, I saw many chatterers online joke about how stupid this was, how Trump was crazy, and most of all--how his presumed Democrat successor was going to have to roll the whole mess back. There was even a sitcom! To the contrary, I heard from my military contacts that in fact the Air Force had been pushing for this move for years, and Trump was the guy who broke through all the bureaucratic hand-wringing and faction-wrangling to actually make it happen.

I suspect something similar is true of Greenland. For all our military adventurism, the United States of America has made a much bigger difference globally by being the economic center of the world. China learned that lesson, and is now doing what it can to overtake us in the same way. So yes, stuff like oil and rare earth minerals and trade routes are important--but so is "sphere of influence." Smart people recognize this, and I would guess that our national security apparatus communicated some of this to Trump, and in typical Trump fashion he said "oh hey everyone, I guess we need Greenland now? Let's stop pussyfooting around and start the negotiations!"

The story of the establishment of the Space Force before Trump was ever involved is long and fascinating. The key proponent that actually got it done was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Raymond . The short version is that there had been elements within the USAF, NASA, and congress that have been arguing for a separate military branch for outerspace operations since the 60s. The space stuff actually started in the Army, though it transistioned to the Air Force by the 60s. In the early 80s they finally made a separate Space Command org within the USAF, but this is when the case for a separate force really started to gain momentum, though it would be a long time with an abortive attempt until it actually happened. The argument hasn't really changed in nature at all over time, just relevence, as the circumstances have changed around that Air Force: the subject matter expertise, experience, and career paths for the space related operations has become too complex and specialized to remain in the USAF, just like the Air Force itself emerged from the Army for largely similar reasons. General Raymond spoke many times about his own path through the ranks, mirrored by many of his peers, where he'd be productivly commanding a org within the Space Command of the USAF, get promoted and transferred out of SC back to the general aviation Air Force, and everything he was working on back in Space Command fell apart. Yanking the COs and NCOs back and forth, in and out of Space Command produced worse officers/nco performance in both orgs, chaotic career paths, and hastened retirements of COs to fled to the private sector to continue to follow their passion for space. Essentially that we would be unable to field a competent space command as long as the career people with the expertise could be yanked out of the org at any time without recourse. The Air Force had been promising increased autonomy and specialization to the existing space command, stating they'd stop jerking the career people around and allow them to specialize but never made any real moves to implement it. I think, in my very amateur observations since then, these arguments have been borne out by the record of the USSF, which is operating quite effectively according to everything I've seen and read, especially compared to the other branches. (particularly the Navy which is a mess).

The answer is: because Greenland is cheerfully taking Chinese money and our current options are "do something about that" or "don't do something about that."

If all China's doing is trading with them, couldn't we simply try to outbid China? Why is annexing the place the only form that "do something" can take?

If all China's doing is trading with them, couldn't we simply try to outbid China?

Probably, but international trade is complicated. What goods do we manufacture that the people of Greenland/Denmark want? What do the trade surpluses and deficits look like between the various interested parties? Who controls how much of who else's currency/economy/etc.? Can China be counted on to "play fair" in response to being outbid?

Why is annexing the place the only form that "do something" can take?

It's very clearly not the "only form" that "do something" can take! Hence:

...in typical Trump fashion he said "oh hey everyone, I guess we need Greenland now? Let's stop pussyfooting around and start the negotiations!"

And, in typical Trump fashion, he is throwing out alarming possibilities as a way of encouraging actual forward motion on a deal. This is a common way to do business. It's not an uncommon way to do international politics. Is it a good way to do those things? Perhaps not. But this is a nuanced, complex, and contentious question, which is broadly being treated with ridicule instead of reflection and thought. This is understandable in that humans tend to want to respond to bombastic rhetoric with their own bombastic rhetoric. But Trump's "solution" to interminable geopolitical handwringing is often to flip some tables and force action. Whether he gets exactly the results he wanted (or promised) seems secondary, in his mind, to whether he at least moves the needle. And prior to Trump's rhetoric, it seems clear, the needle was moving slowly but inexorably in China's favor.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats