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 -
But see this attitude is part of the problem. Trump's interest in Greenland is not irrational or sudden. It's strictly transactional. It could be arranged easily. There is no special reason why Denmark has to have it, it doesn't form a core part of the Danish identity or state. It's some land they technically own. And instead of being willing to deal at all or even producing good reasons why the deal should not be done, everyone says, "it's our sovereign territory!" Well, yeah, can we do a deal about it? "It's ours! Not yours! You can't have it!"
There has been a total refusal to understand America's motivations as anything except some kind of ur-bully instinct. Now in the spirit of good will and good discussion, sure, I can admit that Trump's tone becomes hostile and threatening. But this is only because Denmark and Europe refuse to negotiate in the first place. Refuse to even consider it. What threat does it pose to Denmark to make a deal? It's their "sovereign territory"? That's not a good reason actually, that's declaring a priori some kind of status quo as an inviolable metaphysical truth. It doesn't actually violate the dignity of the Danish people to propose swapping some land. It's a kind of TDS, of a kind with when Trump warned the Germans of their dependence on Russian gas and they laughed at him.
Europe wants to act as though America is totally irrational but it doesn't seem as though Europe is rational either. This is why, when you say, "please consider what it might say about America's recent behavior," nobody is interested. People support a theocratic regime over Trump because they think Trump is mean? They want Iran to win and cripple the global energy market so Trump suffers a loss? That's not rational. It's not the product of a rational mind. Irrational people are not going to prod us to introspect, except maybe to consider if we need to change our behavior to avoid their erratic behavior.
And one of the core tenets of capitalism is that you have the right to value anything however highly you wish. If your neighbor comes to you offering to buy your house, you have every right to tell him it has sentimental value and that he should kindly fuck off, even if he offers you a lucrative deal. You don't actually owe it to him to be willing to sell.
This is a game of DARVO. They said no. They have a right to say no. And while Trump does have the right to come up with a more lucrative deal, he's instead going the route of trying to find ways to punish them for not accepting a deal they think is bad. Sorry, but the problem is not that third parties are unreasonable for not being helpful to you.
Neighbor A: Good day, neighbor!
Neighbor B: You too, neighbor!
A: I see this old bike you have on your yard, could I have it? It is lying there for a long time, you are not riding it, but I can use it.
B: You can borrow it and ride it at any time, if you want, we are neighbors, after all.
A: I would pay you for the bike good money, I really want it for myself.
B: It's my grandpa's bike, it is our family heirloom. Sorry, but it is not for sale, but as I said, you can borrow it.
A: See this, nerd? This is a gun. I could shoot you at any time and take this shitty bike, if I wanted so, but I offered you money because I am good and generous neighbor.
Think about this offer, nerd, until it lasts.
B: ... thinking for myself ...
This neighbor gives me some bad vibes. Maybe I should ask my other neighbor, who has gun too, to help me.
And, maybe, i should get together with another neighbor and get guns for ourselves too.
More options
Context Copy link
“Opposition to Greenland was irrational” “Oh yeah? We have the right to be irrational!”
I think you’re making my point for me
Are you genuinely trying to think from Denmark's point of view, and imagining that if it were you speaking in the Folketing, you would say, "What harm can it do to enter negotiations?" Would you say to the Greenlanders, "We're thinking of selling you out of self-interest and fear of American aggression, but don't worry, we'll definitely put your interests first, even though you won't be our citizens any more afterwards?". Would you say to your Danish voters, "We know you hate the idea of selling off our territory, but let's see what price they'll pay and then talk about it afterwards." Would you say to other European nations, "We know you hate the idea of selling off bits of our continent and the precedent that sets, but we're just talking, don't be so agitated."
Or would you just make a red line and keep your territory, dignity and support intact?
Talk us through how you imagine a rational Danish leader handling this.
Point of order: Greenland is part of North America, not Europe. It's closer to the North American mainland than to Europe, it's on the North American Plate, and it was first settled from the West. Yes, European colonisation has been a significant part of its history, but that's true of Siberia as well.
More options
Context Copy link
America is a pretty chauvinistic and patriotic country but tomorrow if news came out that negotiations were underway to sell American Samoa or Puerto Rico or Guam, most people would actually not care. You'd get some rally-round-the-flag rah-rah and maybe the other side would shout accusations of selling the country out. But by-and-large the average man on the street would not care unless there were some other scandal involved. These are not core parts of America, we don't have some fantastical attachment to every last inch our "sovereign territory" actually. I can say this relatively confidently because nobody cared when the Philippines went, even though we fought a huge war to acquire it, nobody even noticed, it's a barroom trivia question now at best. Ryukyu Islands were American until 1972. Nobody cares.
So you want to tell me that maybe the politicians could negotiate, but the Danish voters can't possibly have that, and it's the most rational thing in the world. -- ? Why? What does the average Dane actually care about Greenland? Is it a core part of their nationhood? Do they all vacation in Greenland? Fond memories as boys? Does everyone in Denmark have Greenlandic friends, relatives, wives? Is Greenland a point of pride in Danish TV shows and media? Does Greenland form a core part of Denmark's economy? Greenlandic basketball star? Modeling agency? Because it seems like none of that is the case. As far as I can tell, nobody really thinks about Greenland at all, has nothing to do with it. The Danes committed a sterilization campaign there within recent memory. They could barely spare it a thought for defense during World War II, when the Americans had to step in before the Nazis did. So the fanatical Danish attachment to Greenland is based on... what, exactly? Can I not notice that this is extremely irrational?
Because from the beginning even before Trump made threats and boasts the Danes refused to even consider trading Greenland. Why? Is it beyond the pale? Is the ability of Greenlanders to sell technology and land to the Chinese an inviolable human right? Because all that seems to be left is that it's "bits of our continent" as if that settles the matter, it's theirs so we can't have it out of some exaggerated pride. Wailing about how they've been such a good boy and they don't deserve this. Threatening to blow it all up if they don't get their way. ???
A rational Danish leader would say, "well, it's a little goofy, but the Americans are a rich country, we're willing to hear them out as long as the rights of the Greenlanders are respected." The Americans would say, "$100 Billion," or whatever. The Danish public would say, wow, that's a lot of money, we can use this to make Denmark a better place. The Greenlanders would say, "Thanks, hm, we're not so sure but these are our demands." It would be easy and technical, like when the Danes sold us what are now the US Virgin Islands. Did they cry then and wail and complain that we were violating their core territorial sovereignty and stealing their continent? No, it was totally unimportant because nobody cares.
Maybe Greenland really is important to the Danes, but every time I ask I get drivel about human dignity and what good allies they've been. Since it can't be explained it seems totally irrational. Well, we have a pretty good model for this already, and you can groan as I repeat myself for the hundredth time, but, yes, say it with me, it looks like TDS. Trump wants Greenland, it's monarchical, it's what Hitler would do, America can't have Greenland it's about our dignity! Yeah, ok, sure, yeah, ok, whatever you say man.
If the American government announced that they had negotiated the sale of Guam to Japan, I don't think anyone except a few right-wing diehards would care, although if the local population protested the sale people might start caring.
If the Chinese announced that they expected America to sell Guam, and that they would cut off the rare earth supply if America did not, then I would expect the resulting outrage to make it politically impossible to sell Guam to China as a matter of US domestic politics.
There are two differences here: one is whether the territory is being sold to an ally or an enemy, and the other is that giving up inhabited territory in the face of threats is generally considered dishonorable. Trump managed both to sound like an enemy to most of western Europe (not clear if he is or not) and sound like he was making threats (which he clearly was, although it isn't clear how serious they were).
More options
Context Copy link
Greenland is fairly important to Denmark and Danish politics, isn't? It was the topic of an entire season of Borgen in which Greenland-related issues nearly bring down the government. And in terms of population fraction it would be closer to the US selling off Mississipi than the smaller and more recently acquired American Samoa.
I'm not sure I buy this cool, businesslike approach that Americans would allegedly have to the selling of territory, especially if to a larger country, when we already know that isn't Trump's attitude to the buying of territory; he was hot and bothered and mooted military force when denied a negotiation. Your position seems to be "Yes but he never would have had to use aggression if they just did the rational thing and agreed to a negotiation, so really it's their own fault." Doesn't sound like how allies talk to me.
Denmark agreed to let Greenland leave Denmark if it wanted (and it does, in fact, want, as I understand it). So it's pretty clear that however important it is in Danish politics it's being part of Denmark is very negotiable.
Isn't it much more polite (to Denmark) to offer to buy Greenland than to offer Greenland $5 billion to leave? In which case the Danes get nothing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not really. In a capitalist system, worth is inherently a subjective matter of how much you/society value something. Obviously Trump values Greenland, or he'd shut up about it. Denmark likewise values Greenland, but Denmark is the would-be seller so they have final say. And they think Trump's offer is shit, for whatever reason they wish. Even the people living in Greenland have no interest.
Why is it rational for Trump to want Greenland, but not rational for Denmark to want Greenland?
This is a non-sequitur. I'm not denying Denmark's right to have a reason. I'm calling their reason irrational.
What does Denmark get out of owning Greenland? A vacation spot? Gold? They really really like running sterilization campaigns? Because they don't really develop Greenland economically outside of running a shitty state shipping monopoly. And whenever this conversation comes up all the Europeans can talk about is pride and dignity and sovereignty. Ok, what's inherently undignified about selling some land to America? Because apparently this is such a disgusting concept that it's worth no quantity of money, there is nothing that could wash the stains out of doing business with, gasp, with the Americans! Yeah and they're such good allies too don't forget, they just insist we wear a mask when we make love.
Why would they give up land? What's rational about it?
No one likes the sleazy rich guy in the movies who's like "there's no such thing as 'not for sale'!". The more insistent he is, the more pleasant the refusal.
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
Honestly, hand on heart, it looks extremely sudden to me and simply about Trump's desire to have a big block of land that he can colour in on the map and point to when his presidency is done and say, "I did that." One can construct reasons for America to want ownership of it after the fact, but I personally don't believe they're the true cause. Just a personal opinion. But putting all that aside...
My understanding is that Denmark’s stance is the traditional American approach to property rights. You have the right to offer stuff unilaterally, sure, and maybe the other person will decide that they're interested after all. But "it's mine, I like it, there's no BATNA you're willing to offer and I don't want to give it to you right now" is equally a valid response. Do you disagree? Does that disagreement extend to your daily life and your own possessions?
I sincerely appreciate the good will (I can't prove it over the tubes). Again, though, becoming hostile and threatening when someone doesn't give you what you want is the ur-bully act. If you demand someone’s ice-cream out of their hand and you say, 'look, I want that ice cream, there's no reason you shouldn't give it to me for a fair price', then 'no thank you, we’re not interested' is a fair response and getting hostile is inappropriate. It's just in the nature of things that this interaction looks very different to the two different people involved.
More options
Context Copy link
What was Trump's offer? Was there ever an offer on the table?
Sounds to me like making irrational demands can just be "Art of the Deal"-ing you!
Diplomats were furiously communicating and negotiating on both sides of the Atlantic, just because it didn't happen on twitter doesn't mean it didn't happen in real life.
And just because it didn't happen on twitter, doesn't mean they didn't offer a deal or produce good reasons why a deal didn't happen!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link