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.
So basically, Greenland/Denmark has decided that they will accept (or rather, not resist) military occupation by the US, it's just that the "who runs the government" part is still Denmark's problem (or Greenland's, should they so decide).
Provided the text of the deal backs up that interpretation, Greenland is now de facto conquered American territory. (It sounds like a very Chinese way to run a conquest, honestly.)
One wonders what the implications for the other Arctic-holding State to the US' immediate north is, as this agreement inherently (and formally) threatens all Canadian trade capacity with non-US countries.
I do suspect that Canada will be next simply to ditch the boat anchor of military obligations and accept a similar deal as reality, because I don't believe for a second that any recent move on our part to try and desperately appear as a real country is at all genuine. Indeed, the only re-investment being made is to the navy... in that they actually bothered to buy some
U-boatssubmarines, and I can honestly see a trade made for American foreign investment actively invited towards Atlantic Canadian facilities when it comes to the US' navy (in a way that benefits the only voters keeping the current government in power, of course- the auto workers were always fucked, but there will be zero immediate electoral consequence to that).If anything in that "negotiation" survives it's going to be a similar type of US occupation. Should have bought the jets when we had the chance.
Canada will just crack up rather than accede to US suzerainty. The US will be dictating the foreign policies of independent Quebec, Nunavut, Prairieland, etc, make no mistake, but 'Canada' the country? Never will it agree to that.
The funny thing about current American negotiating posture is that the people it affects correctly perceive it as a deal with/calling out them, directly.
If electoral and social systems for reform were still as functional as they were in the 1980s this would go a lot smoother but those systems have atrophied in all relevant areas as well, ironically thanks to the US.
I honestly see it as a public declaration of "Your country is now under new management. Here is an absurdly generous severance policy that contains everything your line workers ever wanted. The layoffs begin in 3 months."
(The executives and tenured personnel threw it back in their face claiming "they built this company", and are flailing around trying to desperately undo that decision. But they needed the help of departments they fired 20 years ago to have any chance of this working.)
Reminds me a lot of Elon buying Twitter.
You obviously don't have any obligation to do so but as someone who hasn't been closely following the Canadian plotline and isn't super familiar with Canadian politics, I'd love to better understand what you mean. Maybe there's an article you could point me towards?
Alternatively I'd love to read a write-up (past or future) by you on it.
I have a TL;DR of the current tensions and situation here and here.
This was what was supposed to happen in the 2025 election, and I think that if it had Canada [as in, its bureaucracy] could have ultimately kept a lot of its power as it renegotiated its posture as an American satellite state without interference from said bureaucracy (who were clearly intending to let their Opposition go and do this, based on the polling at the time).
But what happened instead is that legacy Canadians (the 65+ set, specifically) dug their heels in and halted that reform. (I'm reminded of the "hick boomercons all voting Trump"; this is the Canadian version of of that.)
Trump's negotiating style, which personally targets those people specifically, didn't help the Reform cause.
The current problem Canada has, and it's not being talked about very much, is that it's actively growing apart in a way (in the "forming legitimate State capacity to self-govern") it's never really done before. I was shocked in early 2025 (before Trudeau stepped down) when Premiers were running around having foreign policy discussions- in a federal system that's functioning properly, that's not supposed to happen- but it is here because most provinces depend on the US for something like 90% of their economy (cities less so, and as you'd expect, cities voted for the war).
Generally the pattern with Canadian politics- which has been true since before WW1- is "try to be independent, succeed, give up anyway". Which I think we're seeing right now; while I underrate European willingness to make a trade deal whereby Canada keeps most of its industry (because Germany needs that industry running to prevent a Worker's Revolution in its nation... which, ironically for America, is what Trump represents) maybe I'll be surprised by what they allow.
But I have no reason to believe this arrogant stunt by the capital/Eastern Canadians won't end the same way.
If only these Canadians hated Washington more than they did their own countrymen- sure, the "quick, pay our countrymen so they'll fight for us" is coming now, but this is all just fair weather talk. Maybe part of that's American urban vs. rural propaganda (against which Canada has no institutional defense, why Red correctly sees Blue-aligned Canada as an enemy nation, and if you've read much of @FCfromSSC's theses I think this unravelling is a blueprint for how a larger American wind-down could potentially occur, though the US has strategic realities Canada lacks, like a navigable waterway in the Heartland).
It's quite unfortunate, too- one notes that there were no separatist calls in 2022 even when the West came to Ottawa to protest; all were waving Canadian flags. There is an identity here, it's just that for it to be real, it needs to involve all of Canada- right now, the rallying point is Orange Man Bad, but when Orange Man leaves office and the policies continue on track (because it makes solid strategic sense for the US to do this, and it'll get worse under a Blue administration because [unlike Reds] they won't give a damn about what's good for the Midwest), what happens then?
Most Canadians are assuming this isn't the new normal. I disrespectfully disagree.
I'm sure I'll eventually end up doing this provided my meds hold out, but I'm really not sure what else I'd actually say other than "Canada is not a political monolith, everyone who has to pay for this hates this, why does Trump care more about future Canadian economic viability than Canadians themselves do?".
(Then again, I was a fan of him the first time; that was before I met someone that established further evidence that how he functions is typical for people of his type and somehow manages to inspire leadership. I don't know why that happens, I just know that the effect is real.)
Very interesting, thank you! If you do a write-up, feel free to tag me.
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