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 -
So something actually happened regarding Greenland.
Details are fuzzy, but Trump just posted that the US made an agreement with Denmark and Greenland gives the US permanent military control over Greenland, the right to expand its military presence there and, most importantly, to veto any foreign intervention on the island.
This will not make Greenland a part of the United States, which means Mercator Projection dominance lies beyond our grasp for now.
Critics will point out that this doesn't really change anything since the U.S. already had de-facto military control over Greenland. I think in these case the critics would be wrong. If Trump's post is accurate, this does seem substantially different from the previous agreement. It's permanent, the US can expand with Denmark's permission, and they can deny foreign expansion without Denmark's say so.
It's unclear exactly what the US gave up in order to get these concessions, but Trump says it will cost the US taxpayer nothing. Perhaps there are trade concessions?
What's somewhat interesting is that the US barely has a presence on Greenland at all anymore. At one point, in the Cold War, it stationed 10,000 troops there consisting of a quarter of Greenland's population. Today, just 150-200 unlucky souls man the Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland. Perhaps that's what makes this agreement valuable. The U.S. can now deny adversaries such as China a perch in Greenland without having to actually send in troops.
Greenland just ceded sovereignty to the United States. We’re calling it something else, we’re pretending that sovereignty is when you have a flag and a parliament and a Danish passport. But Greenland just ceded the legitimate use of the monopoly of violence to the United States. It’s a nice diplomatic fiction in a world that prefers fictions to naked force.
But make no mistake: American power is expanding. This isn’t really about installing military bases (although that required negotiated approval before, a key difference many are choosing to ignore). Anybody thinking in terms of tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in bases took a wrong turn in the 20th century.
Consider — Pituffik (Thule) is now operated by Space Force. American power in Greenland is less about stationing troops and more about coordinating satellite linkups.
Near-term predictions:
SpaceX will announce a massive deal to connect Greenland up to Starlink. (Actually it will probably be pretty cheap and derided even as “small”.)
American investment into improving Greenlandic ports will follow. Denmark’s monopoly on shipping will disintegrate.
The US is becoming an empire. Suzerainty is a standard part of the empire package- the British empire was full of member states who governed themselves. Greenland gave up the right to an independent foreign policy, sure, that means their diplomats can't take bribes for favorable votes at the UN. Small potatoes. But the historical norm is for those kinds of small states to have no independent foreign policy anyways, and it's unlikely Greenland particularly values the ability for its eventual independence to influence world affairs.
Now, what happens with the inevitable breakup of Canada is far more interesting.
I don’t know that the breakup of Canada is inevitable. I don’t think Canada is a “real country” and it basically exists at America’s convenience, but it is convenient. America doesn’t want to have to deal with Quebec, native rights, Ontario, or maintaining the vast Arctic expanses.
The way I see it America needs Canada to do the following:
Canada needs to provide America preferential access to its vast natural resources (those known and those that will be discovered)
Canada needs to not become a proxy for foreign powers or terrorists (Tamil Tigers, Chinese auto dumping, etc.) (This includes patrolling the Arctic)
Canada needs not to threaten America in its own right (talk of turning off energy, for instance)
Besides that, what do we need Canada for? They can maintain a separate legal system, they can deal with bi-lingualism, they can criticize us at the UN and accept our help when diplomats need to be extracted in a crisis. There are even some advantages in this arrangement. Nobody really wants to go to war for Canada.
I’ve even been thinking that Canada """joining""" the EU can be face-saving for everybody in many ways. The EU is already essentially an American client, Canada joining it is like your child running away from home by hiding in his sister’s room. Trump is thinking differently but I can imagine some formulation that makes everybody happy.
(To be clear I think the EU project is majority unlikely.)
Actually joining the EU in any meaningful way would absolutely lead directly to a breakup (or at least some sort of splintering) of the nation -- the US might like this of course!
While all the boomers will of course say in context of the current environment that they love Europe, (the comparison to the US is implicit) so far as I can tell the ruling class of the EU is basically Trudeau on steroids -- and that approach is enough to splinter off at least the West in the medium term.
Probably the non-GTA parts of Ontario too -- Quebec would probably be on board, and the Maritimes will vote for whomever sends them the best gibs (although both are capable of becoming riled over seemingly inconsequential things, so who knows) -- I'm not sure what the country would look like ten years hence, but it would not be the same.
Ironically Carney is probably looking for some sort of non-deal that will allow him to claim victory, similar to what Trump seems to be doing in the case of Greenland -- so I agree that anything substantive is unlikely to happen; he runs the risk of summoning that which he can't put down though.
I think this is an accurate take. It's possible that Canada and EU will sign some sort of fake deal that does nothing except affirm that the Orange Man is indeed bad.
The EU, of course, would love to take Canada's natural resources and give them some hostile MENA immigrants in return. I think Carney's too smart to let that happen.
From a perspective of what's best for Canada, they should just give the US whatever it wants, deregulate, shut the border, and watch GDP per capita soar to a level above that of the United States. Their relative poverty is only due to a weakness of spirit. Based on natural resources and human capital, there is no reason for them to be so poor. But at least we're not Americans, eh?
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