site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   25559 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.

3
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.

Uphold article five? With whom? With what? Didn't a poll just show that two thirds of Germans would "probably not" fight for Germany? What fraction of the remainder would fight for Greenland?

"This will be easy special operation, three days at most. They are cowards, they will not dare to resist our might."

Such words were said many times in history. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were not. Now, if it turns not to be the case, what is your plan B? How many casualties will US accept to secure the sacred snow and ice of Greenland?

Was Venezuela not exactly this fast operation? Were their troops not cowards who would lift a single MANPAD to resist our might?

We (for value of "we"=military history nerds) will know in decades, if ever, what exactly happened this fateful night, what, if any, subterfuges and backstage deals were involved.

But, according to reports that came through, Venezuelans and Cubans stood against science fictional death ray and died, something as far from cowardice as there could be.

Anyway, lessons from Venezuela for potential confrontation between US and European countries are limited (unless you believe them to be equally rotting and decrepit shitholes).

hordes of Islamists

As relevant to potential US-EU war scenario as American mass shootings and constant gang violence, this is not at all. For example, India and Pakistan are both full of internal unrest, and it does not stop them from warring with each other in the utmost seriousness.

but you will fight and die

This is decision for European leaders and their armed forces. Will the leader give orders to resist the invasion? Will the soldiers obey? Will they do so effectively enough to cause significant US casualties?

Look, I don't know or even care really why Trump wants Greenland.

Do not ask any questions, just trust the Great Leader. Nothing can be more American in spirit.

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