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 -
This situation is a bit more nuanced than that, I think. Indulge me, for just a second, if you would.
I'm not going to argue that Trump's rhetoric on this has been good (in fact, possibly it's been counterproductive) in part because fact-checking everything he's ever said would be extremely tedious, but I am given to understand that he ruled out actually attacking and seizing Greenland at some point. Great. But it seems pretty clear to me that he didn't wake up one morning and decide "ooh I want Greenland" for no reason.
The truth is that the US has wanted to acquire Greenland for a long time (the US has kicked the idea around since the mid-1800s). During World War 2, the US actually invaded Greenland, actually took control of the island, and then when Denmark asked the United States to leave after the war was over, we refused, the US being, apparently, convinced that Greenland was important to its security heading into the Cold War. The way NATO fell together smoothed things over, and the US continued to maintain bases there (although it still kicked around the idea of purchasing the island).
So we found a tenable status quo that rested on cooperation. What could have changed since the Cold War to make the US interested in owning Greenland again?
The answer is that in 2008 Greenland held a referendum on self-governance, which Denmark agreed to honor. A 2009 law guaranteed Greenland the right to leave altogether, if they so chose, and in fact that's the direction Greenland is currently headed in.
Now, personally, I agree with this course of action by Denmark, as I am generally for lower levels of self-governance. (Also, Denmark seems to have treated the natives pretty badly, apparently running an illegal and unethical contraception campaign until fairly recently with the goal of reducing their population.)
But geopolitically if there's any chance that Greenland actually leaves Denmark, it throws into question the currently existing security arrangement! Imagine if Poland agreed to let Suwalki hold an independence referendum: maybe this is a good thing on principle, but the Baltic states would go nuts and understandably so. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a "jerk move" necessarily but if access to Greenland is actually important for US/NATO security and Greenland wants to leave Denmark, it's pretty sensible for the US to want to acquire Greenland.
I think the best solution here for all parties is probably a Compact of Free Association between Greenland and the United States, and to the degree that Trump's rhetoric has made that less likely, I am inclined to think it is bad, and to the degree that Trump's rhetoric has made it more likely, maybe it's actually good.
More options
Context Copy link