site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19575 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.

Applying this epistemic standard to the Greenland situation, the only thing I conclude is that he probably had some concessions so that Denmark would not simply go on record stating there is no deal. This does not mean that there is, in fact, a deal.

Denmark (and Greenland) are on the record stating that there is, in fact, a deal.

The agreement would bar non-NATO nations from establishing a military base or having a troop presence on the island — and would prohibit investments by non-allies in the critical minerals and mining sectors, according to the State Department.

Thanks for the source. I will concede to you, @porkpiehat and @phailyoor that this seems to be a deal. I think the military base provision is a nothingburger -- Denmark would have been unlikely to grant China the right to establish a military base in any case (nor is it obvious that China would have wanted a base there).

The investments by non-allies provision is certainly more of a deal. My understanding is that Western investment in Greenland mining has been less than enthusiastic, and China has shown some interest in investing in Greenland, but been blocked on a case-by-case basis so far.

I think that the purpose of Greenland wrt REE is mostly as a hedge against China cutting off Western access and less as a money-making-machine. Under these circumstances, it makes sense that China wants to invest there for purely strategic reasons, and it also makes sense for the West to limit Chinese investment.

Given the present information, I would be mildly surprised if there was nothing in the deal about foreign investment in mining, but the fine print matters, of course. What exactly are critical minerals, what kinds of investments are prohibited, what about Western companies partly owned by Chinese investors investing in Greenland and so forth.

I don't think that rare earths matter to this story and I doubt that the US will profitably extract them from Greenland.

China controls the rare earths market not because of superior geology but because of superior refining capacity. For a long time, China has sold rare earths for below the cost of production, driving western competitors out of business. Molycorp is the most famous example.

The US has ample supplies of most rare earths. What we lack is refining capacity. Fortunately, efforts are underway to create a price floor which will generate the necessary investments. And substitution is a real possibility as well. Tesla recently removed rare earths from its EV motors entirely.

What the US wants in Greenland is not rare earths, but to deny China naval and airspace real estate. Sure Denmark may have been unlikely to grant China access, but isn't it nice to have it in writing?

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