site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   23813 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump announces plan to hit UK, Denmark and other European countries with extra tariffs over Greenland

Several EU countries sent tripwire forces into Greenland a few days ago. Now Trump has announced 10% tariffs on imported goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. As a sidenote, despite predictions of economic catastrophe, Trump's tariffs have been smaller and done less economic damage than estimated.

For starters, inflation is running below projections. In December, the just-announced inflation rate was 2.7 percent. The Fed’s favorite indicator was unchanged from November when the core inflation rate, at 2.6 percent, was the lowest since 2021.

Tariffs have had surprisingly little impact on higher consumer prices. “Tariff pass‑through to consumers has been much milder than anticipated,” Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings, wrote in a recent research note. Yet revenue from tariffs brought in close to $300 billion in 2025, up from about $80 billion in 2024, and is currently on track to produce over $350 billion this year.

The evidence suggests that most costs are being absorbed by foreign exporters or by domestic sellers accepting lower profit margins. And since the actual tariffs on different countries are a crazy quilt of different rates, producers have also become expert at shifting their supply chains to countries with relatively lower tariffs. In addition, it’s easy to overstate the impact of tariffs on household costs, since imports are only about 14 percent of GDP. In other words, there are no tariffs on 86 percent of GDP.

The high tariff rate on China skews the averages. Excluding China, the effective tariff rate on the rest of the world, adjusting for trade share and exempt categories, is not the average 17 percent. It’s well below 10 percent. Thanks in part to the tariffs, the chronic U.S. global trade deficit has been shrinking. The October deficit was $29.4 billion, down nearly 40 percent from September. The decline continued in November, the last month for which statistics are available.

Still, no one knows what's the next step of Trump's master plan. Will it fizzle like the whole "Canada 51st state" thing? Polymarket estimates 27% chance that Trump will take "part of Greenland" in 2026.

While this might be a ruse (you never know with Trump), I think it is excellent news for fans of the international rule-based order. It certainly looks like the orange man-child is throwing a tantrum because it turns out that he can't get the thing he really, really, wants to get.

As a (non-SJ) left-liberal, I do not often feel pride in my nation. Merz, that slimy manifestation of upper class interests and inept populism, is certainly not my chancellor. When Putin attacked Ukraine, what I felt towards my country of birth was mostly relief -- at least this time it was not us bringing large-scale war to Europe, like usually.

Today is the first time I might feel something akin to national pride. Mild pride, mind you, making it clear that we would honor article 5 is a decent thing, not a heroic thing after all.

As @BurdensomeCount has observed, Germany has long been a good little bitch to the US. Abduct our citizens to your extralegal torture prisons, and our spineless politicians will just keep smiling. Tap the phone of our chancellor, and she will voice mild disappointment. When Trump tried to sodomize us with his tariffs, a kink of his which was not expressed by our previous masters and which we definitely do not share, we negotiated for a bit of lubrication but otherwise let him do as he pleased. I suppose Trump was surprised that we have any limits when he announced his intent to fuck Denmark in the eye socket and we actually stood up to him for once.

I don't think that loyalist NATO has the military force to stop the US from taking Greenland. Nor would I want WW3 started over it. However, even if we would lose, I would want soldiers on both sides to die over it, perhaps on the order of 10k. No reason to let the bully get what he wants without making him pay some price in the process, plus visibly cementing our relationship change.

Giving that Trump just broke the US-EU tariff deal, some poor EU diplomats are probably having to start talking with MAGA all over again. Personally, I do not feel it is worth it. Just declare reciprocal tariffs of whatever Trump imposes this week and call it a day. Dealing with the Chaotic Evil Tantrumthrower is just too much of a bother, and we would be better off trading with the Neutral Evil that is China. We should probably try to sell them some ASML EUV machines while they still need them, it is not like they are threatening the peace of the EU.

Today is the first time I might feel something akin to national pride.

As a Trump voter who farts in Europe's general direction, I just want to say, I'm fine with this. I'm fine with you guys acting like real countries again, if you decide to try. Because Europe you are just a god damn mess. Everyone loves talking about the decline of the American Empire but Europe holy shit what have you even been doing for the last thirty-five years?

You've regulated your tech industry into non-existence and become a relative backwater, watching your share of global GDP decline by like half. You imported a million zillion Third Worlders who were supposed to prop up your pension systems but mostly just pump up the rape stats. No one will ever let you dismantle the welfare state and something has to give, so you've let your militaries go totally and completely to shit thinking history was over anyway. Now you just sit around begging us for help because a fat old hasbeen like Russia is being mean again, with its GPD like a tenth the size of yours. It's embarrassing.

You never take pride in yourselves? It fuckin' shows. Stand up, if you still can.

Today is the first time I might feel something akin to national pride. Mild pride, mind you

"What's the opposite of shame?"

"Pride?"

"No, not that far from shame."

"Less shame?"

The Europeans have the opportunity to do the funniest thing here and start negotiating a Russian presence in Greenland (since the only reason America would even want the island is to counter Russia).

Alas, at the behest of the neurotic Baltics, traumatized Poles, and what passes for British foreign policy, playing hardball is anathema to the Europeans for now.

It's still not clear to me what exactly the US wants to do with Greenland that they cannot already do. They already have a military base in Greenland and I can't imagine that (before this whole kerfuffle) Denmark would have made a big deal about a larger military presence of the USA in Greenland. Why bully and alienate countries in your sphere of influence to get something you already have?

Look at a globe and put the north pole at the center of your vision. You have Russia on one side, and America on the other. The arctic is already becoming a sea route, and greenland is positioned to be a major part of that. Canada controls a lot of the territory there, and doesn't have the economy or the will to be a powerful western force.

It's about countering Russia and China. They both want increased presence in our sphere, and Greenland is a good place to assert our control. The Europeans are also incapable of managing this.

That doesn't answer the objection. The US is allied with Canada and Denmark. The US has a history of working through bases in allies' territory, and already has basing rights on Greenland in particular.

Why pointlessly antagonize regional allies with territorial demands instead of just working with them? (We know the answer)

We know the answer? What is it?

Canada sounds like they’re currently trying to stoke an alliance with China, and the Europeans refuse to invest any money defense, they just keep trying to guilt us into paying for it. Not only that, but their immigration policies have massively destabilized their own countries.

We need strong partners. Denmark and Canada, at this point, aren’t. Canada just struck a deal to buy a bunch of shirty Saab fighter jets instead of massively superior F35s as a way of trying to spite us, the people paying for their defense.

Because Trump has got it in his head that great leaders are the ones who expand their country's territory and Greenland seems like the easiest possibility for expanding bigly. I don't think there's anything else to it at this point, the given explanations don't hold water. Just monkey brain going ""Give Greenland me give annex Greenland me annex Greenland give me annex Greenland give me you."

But is he wrong?

Is this the sort of a motive where words like "right" or "wrong" even have any meaning?

I mean: is he wrong about what great leaders do?

Taking Greenland now puts the US in a better position to take Canada later.

Trump has said repeatedly that it's needed for Golden Dome. This makes me wonder if the US plans to put nuclear interceptors there - Danish territory is nuclear-free, although they let us bend the rules in Greenland during the Cold War and still might.

I suppose another possibility is that we think if we owned the land outright we would be able to better bar security threats from the territory in a way the Danes can't or won't.

Several EU countries sent tripwire forces into Greenland a few days ago.

Do the Europoors understand how insulting and alienating this is given their concurrent begging for US help against Russia? Even under Trump something like half of the military aid Ukraine gets is from the United States alone. This Greenland thing would be good cause to pull out of NATO if it wasn’t so impotent and pathetic.

I assume you mean that around half of the equipment sent to Ukraine has a US origin, but paid for by EU money under Trump? Direct US funding has fallen to basically zero under his administration, so I guess that is a win for those seeking to disengage from paying for the conflict directly - the total funding of which was around 0.2% of GDP annually when it was actually being sent in past years. Regan would have died laughing if that was the bill to cause this much of a headache to the Soviet Union.

However, the US could certainly do all kinds of very painful things to further undermine European security and Ukraine in particular for sure, like forbidding the EU from paying the US for weapons, stopping intelligence sharing or pulling out of NATO full stop. Europe is dealing with a reorientation in our relationship with the US, which is certainly likely to leave us all poorer - with only the reward of staying out of future US led entanglements.

You didn't need to call on Article 5 post 911, but you did and found it useful in so many ways, and were the only NATO country to do so. Lets hope for America's sake it never needs to enact it under this Trump presidency, for this is the stupidest prize to burn all that for - Greenland, really? You already had it in everything but name for as many investments and bases as you wanted, and the Danes were paying the subsidies needed to maintain the island into the bargain. This is insanity and the reckless arrogance of Trump spending on America's checkbook of massive power built by saner, stabler minds over a century. The Republican party deserves much better.

Regan would have died laughing if that was the bill to cause this much of a headache to the Soviet Union.

Yes, but Russia isn’t the Soviet Union. Europe’s persistent fake befuddlement over why the party of Reagan doesn’t want to support a pack of deracinated, satanist, bioleninist bureaucrats over the (nominal) defenders of autocracy, orthodoxy and nationality isn’t helping.

You didn't need to call on Article 5 post 911, but you did and found it useful in so many ways

The other members of NATO pushed to invoke article 5, the United States rolled its eyes and agreed. Then you cucked out the second it became inconvenient and left the United States and Britain to fight alone.

I still don't quite understand which parts of the European leadership genuinely consider Ukraine a core interest of theirs, which ones are playing the part because of personal obligations to the US (to gaslight their population into believing/accepting US interests as its own), and which ones are doing so because the former two groups have them by the balls. I would've guessed the split is roughly Baltics/Germanics+France/actual Europoors like Spain and Greece.

Since the Greenland "tripwire" deployment is essentially from the second group, they might have thought Greenland is a demand too far after everything they are already surrendering, or (more likely?) see their loyalties as strictly being with the stable "deep state" core of the US and judging the grab for Greenland to be a personal Trump project rather than reflecting an authentic priority of the immortal soul of America.

I still don't quite understand which parts of the European leadership genuinely consider Ukraine a core interest of theirs

Well, it's not so much Ukraine per se, but rather not encouraging more wars of territorial expansion.

Why do you figure they would not consider encouraging more wars of territorial expansion in their interest? I think you could make this argument for France (which, uniquely, still has some sensitive possessions all over the world that would be juicy targets for their neighbours), but there at least doesn't seem to be a direct threat from it to anyone else in the EU.

Why do you figure they would not consider encouraging more wars of territorial expansion in their interest?

Because the damage from such conflicts tends to outweigh the value of the territory gained; thus everyone involved is less able to afford to buy goods from, and produce goods for sale to, everywhere else. A world in which countries regularly start wars over territory is one in which everyone is worse off.

but there at least doesn't seem to be a direct threat from it to anyone else in the EU

Twenty years ago, there didn't seem to be a threat to anyone else from Russia.

Fifty years ago, there didn't seem to be a threat to anyone else from Iran.

A century ago, no one thought China would be of any geopolitical significance.

If wars of territorial aggression become normalised, it is far from certain that the grandchildren of the current leadership will not regard their neighbours with envious eyes, and slowly and surely draw their plans against one another.

Do the Europoors understand how insulting and alienating this is given their concurrent begging for US help against Russia?

It seems perfectly coherent to ask for help against territorial aggression and also hedge against the risk of territorial aggression. This entire Greenland business is absolutely batshit insane on multiple levels. If this were any other president we'd be talking 25A or impeachment.

Yes, the "europoors" care more about their sovereign territory than tariffs or hypothetical pull backs of Ukraine aid.

Do the Europoors understand how insulting and alienating this is given their concurrent begging for US help in Russia?

…Does the US understand how insulting it is to insist on tearing part of a resource-rich territory out of your steadfast ally and treaty member on a paper-thin pretext of ChinaRussia?

This Greenland thing would be good cause to pull out of NATO if it wasn’t so impotent and pathetic.

Yeah you go and do that.

Denmark should offer Putin a base in Greenland next to America’s and see how Trump reacts.

That just gives Trump the pretense he needs to invade militarily.

I think that would shake things up in a profoundly interesting way.

Trump has stated he plans to seize Greenland by force, putting a tripwire force in place is simply good sense, regardless of what is happening in Ukraine.

I don't know if there's a way to say this that will be well-received, or if it possibly violates some rule for here but reading this post I can only think that you should try taking a break from internet politics and spending some time outside of whatever bubbles you're in.

Do the Europoors understand how insulting and alienating this is given their concurrent begging for US help against Russia?

Trump insulted Denmark first (and by extension, everyone invested in the European project) by announcing that the US is going to take Greenland. Claiming to be hurt by the European response is hard to take seriously.

The American cries out in pain as he strikes you

LMAO. Europe needs to get a good kicking to jolt it out of being the USA's little bitch, a position it has dutifully played for the last 75 years. This should be the breaking point but we all know that it'll just lead to more "but muh international law" from spineless leaders as they slowly go along with it. The only good thing going to come out of all this is going to be seeing Europe be on the receiving end of what these countries did and continue to do to the third world.

We all know the next thing that's going to happen is that the US will threaten to pull out of the Ukraine deal unless Europe hands over Greenland, which will be responded to by the Europeans with more moderately worded letters (it shows how cucked the Europe of 2026 is that they don't have the constitution to even send strongly worded letters over direct attacks to their territorial sovereignty).

The only real solution here is to abolish the welfare state, a largesse the continent can no longer afford, and redirect the money into long term capital investments. It'll also massively cut down on illegal immigration once the immigrants very quickly realize they won't be getting much or even anything if they come to Europe.

Hm. Just abolish it? What's your plan for all the disabled people, pensioners without savings, unemployable people, etc?

Europeans will riot if you abolish the welfare state. It can only happen like Greece during the crisis (although there were still plenty of riots then) where there’s no money and the government says it’s this or we starve. Even the French aren’t there yet.

The only real solution here is to abolish the welfare state, a largesse the continent can no longer afford, and redirect the money into long term capital investments.

You would have to abolish democracy first. They will never do this of their own free will.

I guess this is precisely why the Trump admin is heavily discounting their importance. Many European allies are like a rapidly depreciating currency. By the time you try to cash them in, they're going to be worthless.

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