site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17983 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 14, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unless Trump's post is straight up wrong, it seems that we already know what the US received, which is not insignificant.

I'm asking what they gave Denmark in exchange.

But you are right that Denmark/Greenland did not give up anything tangible, only veto power. US control of the island is good for them and Chinese investments would ultimately be counterproductive. It's a win win.

Unless Trump's post is straight up wrong

This is so incredibly common that it would be reasonable to just automatically assume there is something misrepresented. All the trade deals that just turn out to be preliminary frameworks, the peace deals that never come to fruition, the investments that never get spent.

Yeah there is no foreseeable world where Denmark gains by having Russia or China on Greenland (which are the only powers that matter here, unless someone goes to the paradox console and spawns Jan Mayen), and now Trump is happy with them. Neither side concedes anything, nothing substantive changes, mutual diplomatic win.

Greenland has some degree of self-government. The native communist eskimos might invite Russia or China in just out of fit of pique, or in a corrupt bargain.

The native communist eskimos might invite Russia or China in just out of fit of pique, or in a corrupt bargain.

Yeah, but I thought we were discussing Greenland.

Well, the Eskimos aren't really ideological communists, just welfare scroungers, so the US can both outbid and out-threaten any competing offer, sort of like this.

Fully agreed. I still wonder why Denmark would say yes.

Consider, for example, Canada. Their leader just goes around saying anti-Trump stuff and then gets to rule like a king because that's the only thing anyone cares about. Seems like a formula that would work almost anywhere.

then gets to rule like a king

What does this mean? Carney is the PM and the leader of the Liberal Party. Like, no shit he's setting policy.

He says Trump stuff and then no one questions his policies. It’s a luxury few enjoy.

What point are you trying to make? It's surely not just "Mark Carney is popular with Canadian voters for standing up to Trump." If the question is "why would Denmark makes concessions when Canada wouldn't?" it's pretty straightforwardly because this is basically a reiteration of the status quo whereas Trump is trying to economically ratfuck Canada.

then no one questions his policies. It’s a luxury few enjoy.

Who is "no one"? If Carney didn't have the confidence of his party, he wouldn't be PM, the same as the PM in pretty much any parliamentary system.

Two reasons: one, Europe is currently really worried about the possibility of Russian escalation into asymmetric attacks outside of Ukraine, and the Scandis very much want the US to have Europe's back right this minute. Two, Europe is not Canada. Unlike Canada, Denmark is a country that has its own identity and its own domestic political considerations that don't revolve around the US - including an almost unique political synthesis which is willing to compromise with the Right on e.g. immigration in order to protect Danish neoliberal social democracy. These domestic political considerations vary (for instance, I don't think that Sweden would have made the same decision, they're more divided and less competent than the Danes, and any country closer to Russia would have rolled over far sooner, if they'd somehow happened to own Greenland), but this makes sense in the particular context of Denmark.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats