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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The thing that stands out for me in the UK is how we do not hear about anyone in America either opposing or really supporting Trump in this course of action. It seems it's up to him to turn a nation of 350 million people into a territorial aggressor, and few others can or will make themselves heard above his incredible attentional monopoly.
From afar it reads as Americans not caring either way, though I know this isn't actually the case. It makes me question why the US system doesn't feature an official leader of the opposition. There is a voice missing in this conversation that such a role would help to fill.
I think it’s useful to model the average American voter as not caring about foreign policy. The stances of the two major political parties are best read as coalition management tactics to keep specific demographic groups aligned. There is no pro or anti rules-based international order constituency.
Reuters/Ipsos poll:
I don't know whether that supports your claim.
It's funny because anyone who answered not sure or no to the first one should be disqualified in having an opinion about the whole thing to begin with; it's a question with an answer about as close to an objective factual answer in military and geopolitical terms (which of course is yes), as it's one of the boundaries of the crucial GIUK gap, control of which limits Russian access to the Atlantic. If someone doesn't think it's strategically important to deny Russian warships access to the Atlantic, then I really wonder WHAT they consider strategically important!
3rd question is missing important context (instead of purchasing it? if purchasing it fails? if Russia or China gain influence or control of part of the island?)
4th question is doing the opposite, it's typical media bullshit of using the poll as diffusion of information rather than measurement, the pollster is more interested in telling people that the US is allowed to build military bases on Greenland by an existing agreement than taking proper measure of public sentiment.
I'm also baffled by the 3% who don't think it's strategically important, but aren't sure the US shouldn't build more bases there.
Not that, as the majority of people failing on the first question shows, public sentiment on it can be expected to be very sophisticated.
More options
Context Copy link
If Trump said, “we have too many McDonald’s restaurants in this country. We should close some down and replace them with Burger King,” and then a poll came out that said only 4% of Americans support decreasing the number of McDonald’ss and increasing the number of Burger Kings, this would not indicate that Americans care deeply about fast food policy.
More options
Context Copy link
Before Trump started going off about Greenland, I'd be very surprised if a significant share of those respondents even knew that there was such a place, let alone finding it on a map.
The first game in the US remake of Squid Game could just be "Name three countries".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Notionally, this would be the House and Senate minority leaders (or majority if they held the houses). It's less-clear who "opposition" is than the UK system in some cases, though not at the moment since the House, Senate, and President are all red.
I don't have a good answer as for why they are being so quiet, though. Obvious candidates are recent leadership turnovers, ongoing great political realignments and internal party schisms (who are the base we're representing anyway?), and letting the Republicans make a mess of things that's clearly their own fault.
More options
Context Copy link
On the opposition side, I think the big problem is that they've realized Trump is a much better politician than anyone on their team. And much as when I roll in BJJ with an upper belt and he starts to do something I don't understand, my first instinct is to stop him from doing it because I'm sure it will be bad for me, the Democrats don't want to fight Trump on ground that Trump has chosen. They don't want to fight over Greenland because they can't even tell if he is serious about Greenland, and he might have abandoned the idea this morning and then where are they? A lot of anti-Trumpers think it's a distraction, though with Trump it is impossible to figure out what the distraction is and what we are being distracted from exactly.
I think there's a transition from the old guard that means a huge lack of leadership. There's no presidential nominee to act as party head and people like Pelosi who were, if nothing else, competent are gone.
Seriously, who is the boogeyman for right wingers right now?
Gavin Newsom and Tim Walz get a lot of air-time as the presumptive democratic nominees for 2028 but internally most of the concern is focused on liberal AGs like Letitia James, Keith Ellison, Jay Jones, Et Al and the various PAC, NGOs and non-profits that are backing them. The lawfare against Trump during his four years in the wilderness was something of wake-up call/radicalizing moment for a lot of mid level Republicans, and I don't think anyone in the Democratic party truly grasps just how bad the liberal reaction to the Charlie Kirk and Annunciation Catholic Church shootings looks for them.
More options
Context Copy link
Tim Walz.
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on which set of "right wingers" you're talking about. But in the context of my more "normal Republican voter" acquaintances, with respect to Democratic Party politicians, I'd say Gavin Newsom.
More options
Context Copy link
AOC and Zohran are the current guys getting the Terrible Photograph treatment in my parents mailboxes.
Which kinda proves your point. A Housemember and a Mayor from NYC.
But it's not so much the old guard transition as that Trump is just really good at politics. Whether he is really good at policy is a separate point, he is a world-historically talented politician. Look at all his knockouts on the way to belt, he's the Ali of POTUSes: ended the Bush dynasty, knocked out Rubio, Christie, Cruz, Kasich to get the nomination, then Clinton to get the belt, a close loss to Biden with weird circumstances around it (COVID), then wins the R nom so easily in 2024 that it never really got off the ground, DeSanctimonious was bodychecked and Rubio never even started his engines, and murders Biden and Kamala on his way to another title.
At this point Dems don't want to play his game. If they respond on Greenland, then they are letting Trump set the terms and pick the battle.
Trump's approval ratings are relatively low. Democrats' are apparently even lower.
I don't think it's just that Trump is good at politics, though he is. Democrats need to decide where to hold on and where to give ground policywise. And no one has the authority or charisma to do so right now (especially because I suspect part of the cope is "he's unpopular and will lose midterms and then be term-limited so I don't want to fuck anything up and stand out")
Not just because of Trump. Because their own party will rip them apart for picking wrong. Dean Phillips and Seth Moulton faced serious criticism for breaking early on certain matters. Ezra Klein was basically put in a struggle session with the anointed black prophet for daring to suggest Charlie Kirk wasn't the devil. Why is this even seen as a "black" thing? Because Kirk said some things about affirmative action? It seems to be the least interesting or dangerous thing about him. Imagine trying to take any position when dealing with this sort of thing.
I think when there's a nominee there will be someone with both an interest and ability to decide, to pick targets.
When democrats lost big in 2024, the head of the Texas Democrat party tweeted out something to the effect of 'we should be more willing to accept that most Americans do not agree with us on trans issues'. He was pressured into resigning within 24 hours. Gino Hinojosa is somebody that insider dems know about, even if the man on the street does not. Democrats are structurally incapable of moderating their ultra-unpopular positions, and they're structurally incapable of attempting to present them in more delicate ways.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the American side, I just see everyone is dumbfounded. There's plenty of people who are just attacking Trump as being Trump, saying he's going after Greenland to make a name for himself, because Denmark slighted him, idk. The right is mostly in shock, with everyone scrambling to figure out how this makes the least bit of sense. There are plenty of people who trust Trump enough to wait for a higher strategy to emerge. But I've seen plenty on the right just confused, upset, weirded out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link