site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7244 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 21, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Greenland Deal has been signed and its full text has been released. As expected, it is mostly concerned with military matters. Some highlights:

  1. The United States will be allowed to expand its presence at Pituffik Space Base, seemingly without restriction.
  2. The United States will be allowed to create two more military bases in Narsarsuaq (south Greenland) and Mestersvig (East Greenland). These bases, alongside Pituffik, will allow the US to effectively defend Greenland from all directions and control the entire coast much more easily.
  3. If the U.S. wants any further bases, it will be able to propose them without restriction to a standing committee for evaluation.
  4. The U.S. will fulfill its defense needs through contracts with Greenlandic businesses and with Greenlandic labor, whenever feasible.
  5. The U.S. will be allowed to maintain "unmanned military installations" as needed. I'm assuming this primarily relates to autonomous missile defense systems.
  6. The U.S. will be granted unlimited access to Greenlandic waters and airspace, both via military vehicles and commercial/public vehicles, so long as they do not significantly disrupt hunting and fishing activities.
  7. The intelligence agencies of the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland will engage in complete cooperation to "prevent espionage" in the territories, as needed.
  8. No non-NATO states will be allowed any military presence in Greenland, nor will they be allowed any significant investment or economic presence of any kind.

Overall, it seems pretty decent and exactly what the U.S. will need to maintain strength as the Arctic becomes increasingly relevant as a missile route from Russia/China. I took a quick look at the prior agreements between America and Denmark w/r/t Greenland, and this does appear to be a meaningful improvement. Prior agreements designated Pituffik (then called Thule) as the only permissible American presence on the island. This 2026 agreement is the first to stipulate the creation of new bases and offer a path for continued expansion. It also strikes me as much warmer in tone. Prior agreements had all sorts of trepidatious language, whereas this one is far more amenable to the idea of a U.S. military presence. While I'm not one to cheer for wanton expansion of the military, this does seem to be a strategic boon, and something Trump can rightfully praise.

One thing I'm wondering... what exactly counts as "Greenland" here? Because the actual island itself is relatively small, and what we see is mostly the frozen glacier on top, which is barren and hostile. The more important parts are all somewhat indirect.

  • who controls the airspace over Greenland?
  • who controls the Low Earth Orbits going over Greenland?
  • who controls the fishing rights and ocean transit lanes near Greenland, and how far out? What about offshore mining and drilling?

These are kind of contentious issues in general, with no clear answers (see for example: the Cod war between the UK and Iceland, fighting over how far out Iceland's control of fishing rights extended). I don't expect this to be fully settled any time soon.

Airspace: whatever nation controls Greenland, so currently Denmark.
LEO: Nobody, space is free for all. Most orbits will pass over dozens of countries.
Fishing/mining/drilling rights: From WP on Cod Wars:

Since 1982, a 200-nautical-mile (370-kilometre) exclusive economic zone has been the international standard under the UN

Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Ocean transit lines: Transit passage is generally permissible. This is all codified in international law.

Mestersvig

Apparently the Mestersvig base will be near a potential 13 billion barrel oil field. If the oil field ever gets developed Greenlanders will be the richest people on the planet. Eat your hearts out, Guyana.

Considering the past discussion thread on the topic, I thought it would be fun to go over the main points of contention and see how they match what was signed.

First off:

Is this just the 1951 deal but with a Trump signature?

A lot of people (me included) speculated that this would be a nothingburger of a deal to give Trump the appearance of a win and thus hopefully bury this entire debacle. This is not quite the case. While many details remain the same, the new agreement does give America rights, including military rights, that did not exist before. I don't know that I would necessarily call these concessions, but it is clear that America did actually manage to get some of their wishes fulfilled here.

But as many suspected, Trump was greatly exaggerating in his tweet.

Does the deal actually give the US the right to veto foreign investments into Greenland?

This is not the case. From the agreement:

the Parties agree that states or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties that the activities of such states or investors would not constitute a threat to national security or public order.

So in practice we are targeting specifically Chinese investments, while EU and NATO countries have all the same opportunities they did before. So the Veto is at best limited in scope. The historical allies can do as they please. Furthermore, the duty to enforce this falls on Denmark and Greenland:

The objective shall be ensured by Greenland in close cooperation with the authorities of the Kingdom of Denmark in its application of any of its current or future investment screening laws.

Whether this benefits the US more than Denmark (outsourcing costs vs direct control) is up for debate.

What did Denmark gain from this?

A sigh of relief. The US has confirmed that they view Denmark and Greenland as sovereign entities with a right to self determination. And this deal implies a stop to American aggression. But for Denmark, this is just a return to the pre-threaths status quo, likely with some lingering uncertainty of "what will he do next?". The real winner here is Greenland. The fact that they got to sit at the table, and the deal takes potential Greenlandic independence into account, signals that all parties view them as a legitimate third party. A show of respect that was not present in the 1951 agreement.

So did Trump win? Did the Dealmaker in Chief manage to use his negotiating skills in a way that benefits America?

On the surface, yes. Trump successfully strongarmed Denmark and Greenland into signing an agreement which benefited the US without needing to give up anything in return. Big win, MAGA's rejoice.

However, the actual changes to the status quo are pretty small, and most (possibly all) of what the US wanted (no Chinese investments and greater military presence) could have been achieved without the threats and hostile statements. The previous agreement already gave them the right to build bases and man them, Denmark was fighting against Chinese investments, and more importantly highly values their relationship with the US. Overall, the White House could have likely achieved their goals here by simply asking nicely. Instead, Trump went in hard. Antagonizing long time allies and implying that he would take by force what he could not get through negotiations. In other words, while nothing material was lost Trump sacrificed soft power and goodwill to achieve marginal gains that could have been reached through more diplomatic means. If this was really important, America could have started to rebuild and man bases there as soon as Trump came in to power, without directly antagonizing anyone.

My takeaway

I don't think anyone won here. Yes, in isolation this deal is good for the US and bad for Denmark. However, the process of getting there has involved alienating long time allies and losing a lot of goodwill that Europeans had for America. Considering that the gains are fairly marginal (the 1951 deal already massively favored American interests) this does not seem worth it. But as far as I can tell this type of deal is emblematic of Trump's negotiating style. He clearly believes that if someone else is hurting, he is winning. You see this with the invasion of Iran and the aggressive tariffs he placed on American trade partners. Whether he could achieve his goals without harming others in the process, or whether there are long term costs that might outweigh the gains, just does not factor into the calculations.

I hope that this deal marks a focus away from Greenland. And I suspect that we will see more situations like this, where Trump starts a process in which both America and the other party ends up worse for the wear, several times more during the remaining two years of his reign.

Overall, the White House could have likely achieved their goals here simply asking nicely. Instead, Trump went in hard.

Reminder that this Greenland drama played out in Trump’s first term (c. 2018 or 2019 iirc) and everyone laughed at Trump and was astounded that this could ever be a real issue. Greenland! He was a lot nicer then as well, I believe he had conducted to negotiate with the Danes politely in private and then it all leaked to the press.

The issue then was that he wanted to treat Greenland like property that could be purchased. His approach showed a lack of understanding of how the kingdom of Denmark was structured, as well as a complete lack of respect for the inhabitants of Greenland. Him being ridiculed had nothing to do with wanting to protect American interests or increase military presence, and everything to do with him looking like a bumbling idiot who thought that he could treat international diplomacy like a property deal.

I agree with the entirety of your comment, except for the idea that this deal is bad for Denmark. I suppose they might not like the fact that the U.S. has a significant presence in territory that is theirs, but I think the writing is on the wall that Greenland wants to go independent soon. Territorial claims notwithstanding, I think the Danes know that Greenland won't be theirs for much longer. If anything, Greenland is an economic sink that has become a liability, and if the U.S. wants to spend money on infrastructure and development, that saves Denmark lots of money. Plus, while Trump's thrashing has reputational effects on America at the moment, this deal will presumably persist long after his presidency ends.

Greenland would like to go independent but if they do there's no way to fund all that welfare, so they probably aren't going to do it.

This reminds me of other performative independence movements. The Scots for instance. They want to 'be independent', but don't want to pay for themselves so they make a lot of noise and predictably do nothing.

The U.S. will be granted unlimited access to Greenlandic waters and airspace, both via military vehicles and commercial/public vehicles, so long as they do not significantly disrupt hunting and fishing activities.

Pretty important concession given all the European countries that cockblocked airspace usage for iran-conflict related purposes.

Did Denmark or Greenland get anything in return for all of this?

The U.S. will fulfill its defense needs through contracts with Greenlandic businesses and with Greenlandic labor, whenever feasible.

This is technically an economic concession to Greenland. They have a client that's treaty bound to prefer them as suppliers, if they are able to fulfill the demand. Whether Greenlanders are able to seize the opportunity is doubtful, but it's an opportunity. If I were a Greenlander with some extra cash kicking around, I'd be looking at what supplies an american military base is likely to need.

I can't imagine the Greenlandic economy being able to provide much more besides seal meat and manual labor to US military specifications, though the idea of enlisted personnel using tauntauns dogsleds driven by natives to get around is quite humorous

They don’t need to produce it, just provide it. I imagine a dozen middlemen organizations are about to pop up in Greenland, buying supplies from overseas and selling them to the US at a markup.

The first Greenlander to qualify for a Taco Bell or Chick-fil-a franchise will set their entire family up for life.

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