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 Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!
If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)
Iran is telling you , "I am your enemy! I will do whatever is in my power to cause you pain!"
Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better!" When the response should be, "Oh geez, these Iran fellas are harming our interests. I should protect our national interests better."
America isn't going to keep the seas safe on its own. Other countries that like having a global ship trade need to step up and protect their interests on the waters.
If China bombed Pearl Habor (...and the White House, and wherever else half of the command chain went, and your key industries...), and the US decided to block... uh the Panama Channel? (I know it doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it screws up the world economy), and proceeds to bomb Chinese-aligned countries, and their ships attempting to go through the channel, I would absolutely blame the American response on China.
It's so weird then that they didn't do that until you bombed them.
It's so weird America didn't block the Panama canal before China bombed us! But you rightfully recognize that it would be our fault if we did.
No? I said I'd blame China.
Interesting. Who do you suppose most people blame for the atomic bombing of Japan?
I don't know about "most", it always felt like a 50/50 issue to me, and "Japan shouldn't have started shit" was always a respectable position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Huh, I read it "Would absolutely blame the American response [on China]" with "American response" as the object of the sentence. Sorry.
As an American citizen I would totally blame America instead of China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you expect this simplistic rhetoric to work? Does it actually work internally? I guess it does. But at some point, if everyone disagrees, maybe it's you who's wrong, ever thought about that?
Even stalwart Anglosphere allies positively obsessed with being friendly to the US and pitching in in its wars whenever possible, Australia and the UK, have just had their leaders deliver a rare national address and specifically say that they don't want any part of this shitshow, and would rather have austerity than go help Reopen The Straight; joining with Canada in a polite de facto withdrawal from the American reality distortion field. The causality of the current crisis is too painfully obvious to all — Iran had a defensive posture, your guys wanted a regime change or state collapse, attacked mid-negotiations with apparent maximalist goals, and Iran retaliated in the most predictable manner, indeed the manner that's been predicted for decades.
So you defected, both against Iran and more importantly against your allies and other economies, this is your mess of choice, and you shan't get to offload it on anyone else. This is a repeated game; irrespective of the EV of reopening the strait in the short term, in the long term the question is what kind of hegemon is bearable, deserving of cooperation and deference in matters such as war. A reckless and indifferent one has been deemed undeserving.
You might not be up to speed, but that's not the response anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up. Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.' Months after he made noises about attacking Europe to steal Greenland.
In my lived experience as of this month, the safest thing for the seas is for America to stay far, far away from the Middle East, or at least to give Trump some sleepy pills.
It's not that I don't get what you're saying, it's just that this is after a barrage of contempt and thoughtlessness from America and I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive. The massive cope that it's secretly some kind of 4D chess to teach us a lesson makes it 10x worse. If America were actually in really serious trouble as a result of outside aggression, we would do what we could to help our ally if asked, and I hope the reverse is also true. But right now Europe is in very serious difficulties that can't be overcome by just 'getting a clue', we need time and space to find the will and the means to recover, and being friends with America is giving us the opposite of that. I'm quite happy to kiss and make up with Iran, and get some oil in return, and I don't see what UK interests are threatened by that.
In general, we would prefer to get American 'help' when we ask for it. As a wise man once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
The point is you created a civilization that needs these things to stay alive, created this reliance and dependency, without putting in any effort to ensure its protection. The default human condition is lack. The default is for things to fall apart if they are not maintained.
If the response to that situation is to kiss up to Iran, then that is at least a rational response. If the response was to kiss up to the US to encourage us to protect your boats, that would be preferred. If the response was to come in with a super-awesome EU Fleet of anti-mine drones and clear the strait yourselves, that would be amazing.
But the situation you are in is that you have leaders decrying the US, who have no power of their own to fix the mess, but recognize the hazard of showing your belly to Iran. They can't have all three.
Now because I can tell it's sounding harsh, I really like Europe. In some part of my heart I view Europe as a museum. A precious, amazing museum. To the extent that Europe deviates from that perception, it creates dissonance. The rational part of my mind recognizes that Europe is not a museum, it is a whole continent of people who are obviously changing and doing commerce and living lives. But there is some level where I expect Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna to be static, for the French to be stereotypical, for the Italian coffee to be great. This is my own personal failing.
Europe has a privileged position in America. You're our foil. We didn't create a government in opposition to Chinese governance, or Ottoman governance. We were Europeans trying to improve upon European political theory. We think we succeeded, or at least wound up with something better than what was there in the 18th century.
But man, the World Wars followed by the Cold War did something to you guys and not all of it was good. It's a continent with self-righteous PTSD. I don't view Europe as "Just like America, but better in every way!" the way some Americans and Europeans do.
But then when I talk to Europeans for work, I often slip into a, "I"m trying to impress you guys because I'm not like other Americans! I'm cultured enough to realize that you think that my willingness to get up at 5 AM to talk to you guys as a form of unpaid overtime is ridiculous, so I will poke fun at my willing self-enslavement to my boss." I'm totally the younger sibling with something to prove, "Look, Ma! Be proud of me!"
My father was born on a US Airbase in West Germany. I hold our historical partnership in high regard and would find it worthwhile to give my life for you. I don't actually believe Europe would fight for the US if we were attacked directly, especially if someone with (R) next to their name was president at the time. I know you guys pulled through after 9/11 but I think that soured Europe on the concept as well.
I actually like your comment a lot but this part seems silly to me
the modern world and industrial human society is a massive chain of interdependence. The USA is not autarkic either and depends on inputs from around the world. Definitely less than other nations, but it doesn't do it all in house either. China is grinding to accomplish this if that's your speed.
up until the serendipitous invention of fracking/ability to exploit shale (quite recently too in the grand scheme of it all), the USA was also an oil importer, so getting smug about this seems really ignorant and unhelpful
More options
Context Copy link
America, under its president, just recently just pointed at Greenland, a territory held by an European government, and basically went "Me want! Me take!", up to hinting to using military force for taking it. There was zero provocation by Denmark - one of the most consistent and reliable American allies in Europe - or the rest of Europe that caused this to happen. It wasn't just Trump's idea, as soon as it was thrown out not only did the Republicans enthusiastically line up to support it but even some lib commentators went "well... it's not completely stupid..." and the Dem response can be described as lukewarm at best. It was justified as a continuation of Manifest Destiny and what have you. The whole of European establishment understandably went absolutely hogshit and then Trump's mind wandered off to the next thing and the Americans just dropped it for now and are now expecting Europe to line up for the next adventure like nothing had happened.
You don't need highfaluting theories about history and Cold War and 18th century or endless anecdotes about snooty snippy Europeans (with the main part of the anecdote often seeming to be some personal psychodrama by the American telling it with moderate to minimal actual European participation). You can just look at this one thing! It's not the only recent thing America has done to basically teabag Europe out of nowhere but it's pretty damn big! It's a very justified reason for Europe to distance itself from America!
Denmark decided to give Greenland the right to secede, and by all accounts they want to leave, which puts current NATO security arrangements regarding Greenland in doubt.
I'm sympathetic to Europeans being upset about how this has been handled (and especially to Greenland independence) but every complaint about US behavior seems to completely gloss over these facts.
The funny thing is, that had the US played their cards differently, it is very possible they could have just convinced the Greenlanders they had a better deal, and let them vote to secede as you suggest. However, the rhetoric from the Trump administration burned all the goodwill, and joining the States voluntarily is borderline impossible now.
The negotiator in chief really dropped the ball with this one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And unlike the rest of Western Europe, Denmark wanted the EU countries to support opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Because Trump's blather about things the US wouldn't rule out, magnified into a threat by journalists with TDS, doesn't hold a candle to their actual interests.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah the Greenland thing is also a great example of Europe going crazy.
Trump does something great for Venezuela, removing their criminal dictator and his foreign security, and a reporter asks if he is going to take Greenland, dredging up an old offhand comment He says it's not off the table, because for a negotiator nothing is ever off the table. Suddenly a huge freakout. America bought Louisiana off the French and it's a sign of our eternal love for each other. America says, half-seriously, "Hey Denmark, what would you demand in exchange for Greenland?" and the world loses it's mind.
And it's stupid. Europe sends dozens of guys to Greenland to protect it? If protecting Greenland was actually the goal there that is a pathetic show of force. But even Europe could probably dredge up more guys. So what was the point there? It's the Greta Thunberg of military actions. It's gluing yourself to a painting. You know America's not going to attack. Some Americans tried to explain why it's in the global interest to sell Greenland to America but the overreaction prevented any kind of rational conversation about this.
But all the people saying that America doesn't need Greenland because we'd be allowed to build and use any military base we wanted there anyways... they have been proved obviously wrong over the past month. And I was one of them.
You are straight up just lying. Trump was throwing out different ways to annex Greenland for weeks. He came up with all sorts of arguments, from how the inuits were poor and needed someone strong (not Denmark) to take care of them, to threatening invasion because a country with a weak military has no right to self determination. He ended up threatening tariffs, then backed down when it became clear that the European Union would not stop supporting Denmark.
I would call this sanewashing, but honestly this goes beyond that. You are actually just lying, because the truth would cause your standpoint to fall apart.
I thought the Greenland thing was a sign Vance should take over but in the end it was bluster. I'm not lying that the European response was literally more insane than the actions I took to be the death rattle of a decaying mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump had intermittently banged the "annex Greenland" drum from the start of inauguration on, as listed here. It wasn't just about January 2026. January 2026 was just the culmination. Whatever the case, if you're ostensibly allied to a country, you should probably not leave a door open to seizing their territory in any particular circumstance, it's like International Politics 101.
I'm not exactly sure what would have been a real "show of force" at Greenland. Denmark had and has actual forces in Greenland to deter a sudden seizure scenario, the others sent troops as a show of solidarity/tripwire.
The American action in Iran fully demonstrated that it was sensible from Europe to "over"react to the Greenland crisis, as it demonstrated that Trump has the full intent and capability to pull idiotic stunts without a regard for consequences with very little warning time.
More options
Context Copy link
I was writing a longer and more detailed reply to your other post but accidentally refreshed the page. Will try and get back to it. But you have to try and understand the experience of being a small country dealing with a massive country that has made clear it doesn't like you very much. You are a good patriotic American as you should be, and America is ultimately 'us'. From outside, America is 'them' and you are not, from our perspective, automatically the good guy or automatically well-meaning.
America's behaviour here is like being a police officer making a joke about raping your wife, just after beating a perp unconscious in front of you. No, there's relatively little chance he's going to do it, and nothing you could do if he did. But that kind of behaviour from an authority figure with complete power over you and a clear propensity to solve problems with violence is really unnerving.
The only acceptable answer when the largest and most powerful country in the world is asked, "are you going to take your ally's land by force?" is, "No! Fuck no! Are you crazy?! We're allies, that'd be insane!". And that's the answer every president before Trump would have given. Most of them would have meant it, too.
EDIT 1:
I note that even here, "Lol, it's only a joke, calm down," is immediately followed by, "would have been a good idea though..."
EDIT 2:
Note that Denmark had already firmly rejected any possibility of selling Greenland during Trump's first term:
The lesson Trump seems to have taken from this is that if he wanted to press his suit further he should also use threats. This is not a half-serious joke, and it's most definitely not a sign of "our eternal love for each other".
That's a bizarre attitude to an American, because obviously there is something you could do - you could shoot the police officer if he started to make good on his joke. To you that might not seem obvious, but it's obvious to an American that this option is on the table, and all that is left is how to best explain the situation to 12 peers.
There is a huge difference between Americans and Europeans and this is at the heart of it. It's not just "Us/them." There is a different attitude towards force and I don't know how that difference developed because at one point I don't think we were that different.
I don't think it would be a good idea to take Greenland by force. I think it would be great if we could buy it from Denmark.
Come now. If you require absolute perfection in my fictional analogies, let him be armed to the teeth while you are on your way to the gun shop to do something about an unfortunate jam.
Again, please consider the main point. Europe is much poorer and weaker than America. I wish it weren't so, but it's so. And yes, threats from you freak us the fuck out because we are sane and it is sane to be worried when the massive, much more powerful nation who just black-bagged a head of state starts making threats.
And since Denmark has categorically refused to sell it, you will happily agree that taking it by force or e.g. economic compulsion through tariffs is completely off the table, yes? Because that would be a spectacularly shitty way to treat an ally who is on your side. Yes?
I'm not even being sarcastic, particularly! The fact that apparently-reasonable Americans, when asked whether America should mug a loyal ally and take their stuff, have a good chance of either shrugging or enthusiastically agreeing is also part of what's creeping people out. Europeans read American newspapers, blogs, and websites. We know what you say to each other.
And even though I suspect that most Americans read anything negative about Trump and their minds immediately present an outrageous French-accented person saying, "Tell me, do you now see your foolishness and disavow your president? Ohohoho!" these are real issues and your behaviour really matters.
Yeah, the US should not take any territory by force outside of a just war situation.
Economic levers are more of a gray area. Just saying, "hey I'd buy this land from you," is an economic lever. Tariffs are getting a bad rap but weren't all that weird too long ago. Denmark doesn't technically have any right to sell things to Americans, though I would like them to be able to do so. I think tariffing Denmark would be imprudent but not strictly immoral if the President had that power reserved to him. (He does not, at least not to the extent he has been trying to use them.)
If China submitted an offer to buy California I think the same Americans who supported buying Greenland would consider it, especially if there was a way to drag it closer to the Chinese mainland. (Maybe the debt crisis will be resolved that way.) Borders are not eternal. I'm surprised Denmark didn't even consider the offer, or what they could get for their far off inhospitable territory. I would be curious to know what their price is.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?
Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.
I much prefer Iran doesn't get nukes, but to be contrarian, why should Europe care? Iran isn't threatening to nuke Berlin or Rome.
North Korea having nukes hasn't impacted European security
More options
Context Copy link
No idea. Personally, I think it's both a fait accompli and very much not my problem. Sooner or later every country that can will have nukes, because it's the only way to make sure that people like Trump don't roll over you. This invasion may have pushed Iran nuclear weapons back 10 years, 20 years, or maybe not, but between them America and Russia have guaranteed that in a hundred years there will be nukes all over IMO.
Believe what you like, but I believe we'd do what we could in good faith. If 'what we can' isn't enough for you, please stop crashing our economy.
Nah, let's be real, there's no way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes.
No, actually. Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.
But, as I said earlier:
Europe consists of Neville Chamberlain's children, the lot of them.
You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.
Because America did.
I'm sure. Israel is the only ally America actually treats like an ally.
As far as I'm aware, the Gulf states were not consulted and were previously against war with Iran, though they are now more worried about Trump pulling out than keeping going. "AP reports that Gulf leaders have become discontent with the United States’ handling of the conflict and have expressed anger over the absence of prior notice of the operation."
I don't think that. I'm British. The chances of Russia getting anywhere near threatening us are tiny, whereas the economic shock from the American-led sanctions crippled our economy for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to argue that we were doing well before that, but I saw the change from being an okay-ish country to a poor one in real time. We are now simply incapable of meaningfully militarising.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link