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 -
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.
They want to leave, but not if it makes them poorer, which it obviously will. So the status quo will continue. And they certainly don't want to join the US.
Easy to say when there aren't any concrete dollars on the table yet, and not necessarily a bad strategy to claim it if you want the offer to be as high as it possibly can if it comes. But not really indicative of a real preference, especially if, as you point out, their principles seem to be subordinate to their material conditions.
When the Greenlanders turn down a real (not a poll) direct payment of 200 000 american dollars per person to join the US (not to sell their land and leave, to join a wealthy country that will likely invest in building up their island!), I'll consider they've actually rejected it. And even then, it might be negociating for a higher number.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a Compact of Free Association could thread the needle nicely, giving Greenland independence while also potentially getting them more US funding than they are getting from Denmark.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To add fuel to the fire: Greenland's independance party just won its first seat in Denmark's parliament and it's apparently a critical swing vote in the struggle to form a coalition there. This is still a developing story.
Interesting!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
See, part of what is missed in this entire discussion is that the US offering to purchase Greenland from Denmark is much more considerate of Denmark. I probably would have made a direct offer to the Greenlanders.
Ah well. You might be right, but on the other hand, I really doubt we've heard the last of things on this front.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Sending a small number of troops to Greenland was exactly the right number of troops. It means there was a chance the US would have to kill someone to take the country, which they would presumably prefer not to do. An unwelcome scenario for Denmark would have been US soldiers landing and taking the country without a single casualty and presenting the new situation as a fait accompli. Tripwire forces were a cost-effective way to increase the cost of invasion and thus deter it, or – in the low-likelihood scenario where Trump decided to invade anyway – Europe would at least have received a clear sign that Trump was willing to turn military talk into lethal action against allied soldiers, making a united European response in that (unlikely) event easier to engineer.
Danes already have about 150 permanent personnel in Greenland. That would have served as a tripwire force by itself. Adding more, and making a big show of it, but not enough to actually fight back, was manifestly ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
how?
By various European countries denying them airspace to support thr Iran operation. No matter what you think of the decision, from the American perspective, this means if they want to ensure that they can use a base, they have to control the land it sits on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
The European response was to deploy a tripwire force to Greenland in case the apparently insane man did the insane thing he said he was thinking of doing. Taking cheap, reversible steps to manage low-probability high-impact risks is risk management 101.
Danes already have about 150 permanent personnel in Greenland. That would have served as a tripwire force by itself. Adding more, and making a big show of it, but not enough to actually fight back, was manifestly ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
I doubt they have one. I don’t mean this personally, but I’m constantly startled at the Make America Great Again movement’s inability to consider national pride as a motivation in other countries.
National pride is complex in Europe for reasons that you know, but voluntary abnegation like the Chagos stuff (ridiculous as I think it is) is totally different to somebody coming over and demanding you tell them what you want for the family silver, especially when they’re holding a knife. Same in Canada and Iran, same with European air bases now, it’s a massive blind spot that MAGA just keeps falling into.
I don't think of myself as MAGA.
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. Greenland's governance has been up in the air as a potential opportunity for almost two decades now. It doesn't seem entirely contrary to Greenland or Denmark's preferences for the US to turn Greenland into a US protectorate. At least, up until the wrong person started trying to talk about it openly.
Consider that us approaching Denmark instead of going straight to Greenland itself was a sign of respect, which was completely misinterpreted.
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
More options
Context Copy link