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 -
Sometimes I think that most people in democratic societies just want to be pandered to.
Ok, Denmark is a very special boy with very important traditions we understand and respect. We apologize for trying to purchase territory in a mutually-beneficial transaction, and we apologize for putting the mashed potatoes next to the peas. In the spirit of understanding we would like to propose instead a schmurchase of Greenlandic schmerritory in something we would like to call a schmansaction, which we only reserve for our bestest most special boy allies in the whole world. Instead of offering money for territory we would like instead to control some pieces of Greenland for which we are willing to reward you with community investment and strategic support.
But this isn't true actually because if that had been the issue this would have all been handled in private six or seven years ago. It was treated as a ridiculous punchline which can be easily verified by reading the old stories.
AP sources: Trump has talked about buying Greenland for US
(Side note: The AP will never correct themselves for being demonstrably wrong. It's also extremely unlikely that the majority of readers will ever update. You're supposed to get the impression that Trump is ridiculous, or not to be taken seriously, or absurd, and if later it comes out that he was earnest or even right it will never be conceded.)
Danish PM: Trump’s interest in buying Greenland is ‘absurd’
Trump rightfully took offense at this because his comments up until this point had mostly been exploratory, made in private, or casual:
President Trump Eyes a New Real-Estate Purchase: Greenland
Of course it was the Europeans who got nasty first and with the usual selective memory now all anybody remembers is that Trump was mean.
Calling what Trump did “mean” is not a good faith argument. He declined to rule out using military force. He essentially threatened to invade them. Just like saying he was mean to Canada wouldn’t be good faith. He talked about them being the 51 state. Threatening to annex territory of your allies is insane behavior and a massive escalation. Doing that because you got offended over another country’s response to your “deal” is not a proportional response. I don’t see how you can’t see this from their point of view.
I'm not a fan of the guy, but as far as I can tell, he has a pattern of "declining to rule out" generally that I assume stems from the business world, and keeping options open.
I think journalists have noticed this and run with it, because "Trump refuses to rule out [shocking thing]" headlines are scary and sell papers. Not to say that some of the specifics aren't ill-advised or major policy changes, either: the Greenland thing seems dumb, from what I've read.
But "strategic ambiguity" has been a (IMO reasonable) policy elsewhere for a long time, and frequently attempts to force a commitment ahead of time are intended to limit options in the future. "Would the US enter a hot war with China to defend Taiwan? If yes, exactly how forcefully?" That gives away a lot to anyone planning an invasion. A "no first use" nuclear policy sounds great, but really limits escalation options even defensively.
Correct; the US (not just Trump, this is an existing pattern) will almost never "rule out" the use of military force in any dispute ahead of time. That's why they asked Trump to do so -- they knew he would give the standard answer and then they could beat him up for it. But he eventually did rule out the use of force in Greenland.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but there's a time and a place. To take a deliberately extreme example, a businessman who declines to rule out raping your wife isn't keeping his options open; that's not an option you're supposed to have. Or to want, for that matter.
No, if you’re trying to deal with someone and your counterparty suddenly loudly asks you if you’ll rule out doing some shocking thing, the correct answer is no and you should understand why. It’s obnoxious behavior; you return serve.
Anyone stupid enough to be fooled by this sort of rhetorical trick has already been tricked the previous 3,000 times, so this will simply be reason #3,001 to hate you.
And you plainly do hate us.
I just want to make sure you’re being snarky and not genuinely misunderstanding who “you” is in my analogy.
(In my comment you are playing the role of Trump, who is continually baited by journalists with partisan goals.)
If you’re intentionally abruptly breaking the metaphor to attempt to goad a wall of text from me, fine.
More options
Context Copy link
The conflict between American Reds and Blues continues to escalate, with no end in sight. Consensus European values are innately hostile to American Red Values and virtually indistinguishable from American Blue values. European institutions are joined at the hip to uniformly-Blue American institutions, and there is no reason to expect this to change. Anything resembling a European Red Tribe has been thoroughly suppressed and is utterly incapable of meaningful cooperation with American Reds in any but the loosest sense. Given these facts, there is no route for meaningful cooperation with Europe as it currently stands, any more than there is with American Blues. There is no way to get along, because our values are flatly incompatible; "Cooperation" means securing support for Blue Tribe in their efforts to remake America into something much more like what Europe is now, and that is not a form of cooperation worth pursuing.
I sympathize with European Red-analogues, but there is very little to be done. The overwhelming consensus in your societies is overwhelmingly hostile to everything I value, so it needs to be fought vigorously.
Would European Red-analogues, if they were had their day in the limelight, even be natural allies to American Reds? The existence of a "Blue Ummah" is, in a way, the intrinsic advantage of Blues; globalists everywhere have common cause, but nationalists can only have temporary allies of convenience. I forget if it was SSC or some other blog in the general sphere that proposed the thought experiment of some lizard species where a subset could be identified as cooperate-bots with a visual signal only visible to fellow cooperate-bots and thereby outcompeted all the others (as a metaphor for certain mind-killing minorities), but it's kind of like that except the signal is not even secret.
Yes, I think so. Mutual admiration, mutual support and mutual cooperation are completely possible, provided there's a foundation of shared values. I like England and Japan, I want them to continue and to prosper. We've been allies with England for well over a century at this point; we've been allies with Japan since the end of World War II. There's no reason in principle that we shouldn't continue to be close allies with these nations for centuries to come. I'm not sure where this argument that "nationalists can only have temporary allies of convenience" actually is supposed to come from. Numerous western countries engaged in both nationalism and durable alliances spanning decades or even centuries; numerous Communist countries fought wars with fraternal socialist allies even in the short span of formal Communism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
See, I get that, when put politely.
I think it's a bit sad, and I do think that to some degree it lines you up with "if it please you m'lud, grandpappy was a Kenyan terrorist" Obama and "did I mention I'm Irish" Biden in the queue of people happy to drop a long-term ally in the cacky for internal political reasons. (I know it looks different from the American side).
But if that is how you feel, I'd prefer America just separate. It's the current attitude of "we despise you pathetic cucks, now give us the land we want and buy our helicopters and pay us eighty bajillion dollars or we'll bump up tariffs even more and if you think of cooperating with China we'll destroy you, though even the Red Chinese are more impressive than you, cuck" I object to. I'm as pleased as anyone that woke is severely weakened, but I wish it hadn't come with all the other stuff.
If there were a cleaner way to do it, I'd be all for it. The situation is several different flavors of fucked due to multiple decades' worth of disastrous errors. Any possible plan has to account for the fact that Blues will get back in control and try to reverse any actions made, and staying inside the bounds they've dictated makes this a lot easier for them to do. Their plan for a decade now has been to play off Trump as an aberration, soon to be forgotten while their consensus resumes the reigns of power. This is wrong because Trump is the effect, not the cause. The fact is that, so long as the paradigm for cooperation Europe is planning for involves Blue-consensus dominance, we fundamentally are not reliable allies and probably aren't capable of being allies at all. Trump is the most effective way we currently have to send that message in a way that can't be ignored; maybe the democrats sweep the election this year and maybe they grab it all in 2028, but whether they do or not, Europe will have to remember that we elected Trump twice, and a large portion of us are willing to do worse yet.
Obviously, European leadership and the population at large aren't fully getting that message, probably for the same reason American Blues haven't gotten it, for the simple reason that it isn't a message they're particularly interested in hearing. So much the worse for us all. What doesn't change is that the world we were sleepwalking into prior to 2016 is not a world I or people like me are willing to accept, and we will do whatever is necessary to prevent the foreclosure of our future that such a world represents.
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
This is how Trump responded after being disrespected. The original dispute was that Trump mused to some aides about the possibility of purchasing Greenland, which everyone treated as a priori absurd. That was 7 years ago, it's only now that Trump's ideas have been taken seriously.
Maybe he should have clarified the misunderstanding instead of assuming disrespect. Or is that only an onus placed on countries that aren't USA?
"Assuming disrespect"? Danish politicians called Trump absurd and crazy because he wanted to negotiate a land deal. Danish politicians were far, far more disrespectful to Trump than Trump ever was to them, unless the concept of wanting to negotiate a land deal is inherently disrespectful.
See? You do get it, even if you don't agree with it.
That would be one of the craziest positions I have ever heard.
And there is the trademark American response to being told no. Congratulations. We have successfully laid bare the source of Trump's recent diplomatic problems.
I'm not even being sarcastic, really. This is literally it. This is how it went down, recreated live.
If you want to defend the position that asking to buy land is inherently disrespectful please do that in plain language.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He went to them for a deal and they said no. Then he threatened violence. If I go to you to negotiate purchasing your home and you say no, I don’t get to threaten to violently invade your home and take it from you for disrespecting me when I won’t take no for an answer. What you are not describing is a good faith negotiation. I don’t think you understand what a “deal” is. Or negotiations.
Yes, this is the part where they disrespected him, as I’ve elaborated. It doesn’t sound like you dispute this because the rest of your post is switching to a different argument.
America paid for that house. America secured Greenland when the Nazis invaded Denmark and the Americans later freed Denmark itself.
This is really dramatic. There is actually a deal that was negotiated and signed right in front of us.
Trump is incredibly disrespectful so it’s not very shocking that people are disrespectful back. You would have to be a total cuck not to return it in kind. And yes, you clearly don’t understand what good faith negotiations are or just have changed it to fit your needs. But this is par for the course for you as you are in the habit of changing the definition of words so Trump can never do anything but win.
You seem more invested in being offended by Trump than the actual politicians who signed a deal. I guess it's fine if you are incredibly offended by Trump, and I guess it's fine if you want to be offensive to Trump back, but I don't know that you can have your cake and eat it too. Trump wanted to negotiate for Greenland, the Danes became hostile, Trump got nasty back. What are we even disagreeing about?
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
More options
Context Copy link
But the idea of selling Greenland was absurd. It is just not possible within the framework of how the kingdom of Denmark operates. Trump acted with complete disregard for established international norms and zero understanding of the country he was attempting to engage in diplomacy with. Of course the reaction was utter dismissal. I guess Denmark and the rest of Europe could have been nicer about it, but as far as I can tell America was the country demanding to be handled with kid gloves, and then threw a tantrum.
This is the entire problem with Europe. It never occurred to you to say that there's been a misunderstanding -- straight to ridicule. Trump asked for something that he thought was reasonable and Europe's response is to laugh. They could have said that a sale wasn't possible but another deal would be -- Trump is clearly capable of working with that since this is in fact the deal that has finally been reached. Moreover it's still not clear to me why proposing a sale is even ridiculous in the first place -- what is in "complete disregard for established international norms" about proposing a land deal?
Here are my defenses for the Europeans:
It's not ridiculous, the problem was that it got leaked and made public before the pre-alignment/coalition-building or exploration of the solution space could have been done.
Let's say I have farmland in a faraway state, you already have some farming equipment put there based on a deal I made with you a long time ago. Then you come and say "I want to own that land", and I say "Farm is not for sale. It’s an absurd discussion. That’s where the conversation ends.", why is it then my job to tell you "but another deal could be made"? I also don't see much ridicule here, I think it's more of the outrage of someone thinking they're being bullied (cause you were flashing the bazooka on your truck) and lashing out.
I actually rather agree with this. I think a lot of people c. 2019 treated Trump wanting Greenland as a priori ridiculous, and there are a lot of people now who are committed to defending that first pass as reasonable. It wasn't but I don't think it was any particularly well-thought-out principle, and I think a lot of the discussion that's followed is rationalizing something that was never rational.
Because we're not strangers. The US and Denmark are supposed to be allies and partners. How would you feel if we were roommates? You say I take up too much space in the fridge, I say you're ridiculous and refuse to negotiate, also I have a spare fridge in the garage I could plug in I refuse to tell you about. That's actually unnecessarily hostile on my part. You say you want more control over Arctic security, I say Greenland is not for sale and it's ridiculous for you to ask, also I'm totally willing to give you most of what you want but refuse to tell you so -- well are we allies or not?
I think a lot of this is over-analyzed actually, because clearly Denmark was willing to make a deal. It's either the case that background negotiations have been happening the whole time, or that Trump's hardball attitude worked in bringing the Danes to the table.
Trump literally wishing to purchase Greenland in the sense of buying it outright as if it was the Gadsen Purchase is ridiculous. Trump wanting a Greenland deal isn't ridiculous, but I would assume that saying the latter and having it misreported as the former is out of scope even for our lying media.
Why? Doesn’t sound ridiculous to me.
Massive national debt? I dunno what the country's financial situation was at the time of the Louisiana purchase.
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
are you seriously telling me to not expect the president of the most powerful country in the world to be capable of basic diplomacy?
Trump was conducting basic diplomacy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe they should put someone who doesn't make very obvious misunderstandings in charge of Trump's social media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What kind of response do you expect to that kind of attitude?
A little ridicule is appropriate when people assert that trying to make good-faith negotiations like adults actually shows "a complete lack of respect". Maybe I'm the one being fussy but I actually get very tired of people claiming to take offense at fundamentally normal behavior. It's normal to spitball and fantasize, it's normal to negotiate, it's normal to have stipulations and reservations, it's normal to ask for something and it's normal to say no. What's not normal is the idea that even asking is inherently disrespectful. Come on, user Bombadil said that a lack of understanding is deserving of ridicule, this is one step away from saying it's not my job to educate you. Maybe I'm the one being fussy, maybe I'm the old man now decrying social mores -- but I think the attitude of hostile ridicule is actually a big problem today and itself deserves ridicule.
Alternative hypothesis: you may have a very unique idea of what constitutes normal. The modern first world has a very, very strong norm of borders not moving, for obvious reasons. What Trump has been doing with Denmark and Canada is like shitting on the pavement and then being surprised that everyone's offended or mocking: doesn't everyone shit? Yes, but in a very different place and manner.
It's not normal to spitball about annexing territory, and hasn't been normal to negotiate the possibility since the 1940s, especially when you accompany those 'negotiations' with obvious threats.
We have a strong norm against wars of conquest, conveniently imposed by the West only after it won World War II and arranged the world to our taste. Even then, borders change all the time. It is literally basic normal diplomacy to negotiate land deals with other countries, although they are not usually on the same scale as what Trump proposed with Greenland. Consider: Hong Kong returning to the Chinese, exclaves and enclaves along the Indian-Pakistani border, the reunification of East and West Germany, the brief union of Egypt and Syria in the 60s. Nobody considers it ridiculous when Belgium and the Netherlands swap territory. America was built on land deals, I don't think anybody serious would propose that the Louisiana Purchase is absurd.
It was all very normal: America has interests in Greenland, Denmark has a lot of debts there, maybe we can do a deal? The European overreaction looks even more ridiculous now that a deal has in fact proven possible, because Trump, it turns out, is not immune to reason and compromise.
American People: What do we need mining equipment in Greenland for?
Trump: What do you mean what do we need mining equipment in Greenland for? Why in the hell do you think we just spent all that money on nuclear weapons? The whole purpose of nuclear weapons in the first place was to get the Danish nice and tipsy topside under our defensive umbrella so we can take 'em to a nice comfortable desk with pen and paper and, you know, they can't refuse giving us Greenland, because of the implication.
American People: Oh, uh... okay. You had me going there for the first part, the second half kinda threw me.
Trump: Well dude, dude, think about it: Denmark is out in the middle of a Hobbesian State of Nature with some dude she barely knows. You know, she looks around and what does she see? Nothin' but realist conception of international relations. "Ahh, there's nowhere for me to run. What am I gonna do, say 'no'?"
American People: Okay. That... that seems really dark.
Trump: Nah, no it's not dark. You're misunderstanding me, bro.
American People: I'm-I think I am.
Trump: Yeah, you are, because if Denmark said "no" then the answer obviously is "no"...
American People: No, right.
Trump: But the thing is Denmark's not gonna say "no", Denmark would never say "no" because of the implication.
American People: ...Now you've said that word "implication" a couple of times. Wha-what implication?
Trump: The implication that things might go wrong for Denmark if they refuses to give me Greenland. Now, not that things are gonna go wrong for Denmark but Denmark's thinkin' that it will.
American People: But it sounds like Denmark doesn't wanna give Greenland to you...
Trump: Why aren't you understanding this? Den-Denmark doesn't know if it wants to give Greenland to me. That's not the issue...
American People: Are you gonna invade them?
Trump: I'm not gonna invade Denmark! Why would I ever invade Denmark? I feel like you're not getting this at all!
American People: I'm not getting it.
Trump: Goddamn.
[notices Europe staring at them]
Trump: Well don't you look at me like that, you certainly wouldn't be in any danger.
American People: So they are in danger!
Trump: No one's in any danger!
lol ok that’s pretty good
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did anyone ask the Cajuns? Nowadays the idea of just buying another part of a country is considered inappropriate.
You are proving my point. All of your examples are the rectification of borders after an act of colonial aggression, or sorting out some weird issues where it's not clear how a border runs through a town and some buildings end up where they don't want to be.
Like it or not, that is very different from, "I have loads of money and a big stick. You have land. I think you see where this is going, but it can go easy or hard. Your choice."
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