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 -
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.
What are you expecting me to say? There are things that are commonly understood to not be for sale. You do not peer through someone's window and then ring their doorbell and ask how much they want for the plush sofa. You don't negotiate for someone's virgin daughter. You don't try to purchase the largest part of a country's territory, especially when said territory is nominally self-governing. Doing these things is not going to be greeted by interest or by a long explanation of the sociological details that lead to such requests being considered inappropriate. It's going to be greeted by an invitation to take a long walk off a short pier.
Ignoring people's desire not to give you something, up to and including refusing to rule out taking it by force, then makes that 100x times worse.
If you must have a long discussion on the long-term effects of postwar American third-worldism, and how WW2 affected people's understanding of the appropriate relationship between large strong nations and smaller weaker ones, especially ones who were already loyal allies, and how economic interests (don't) trade off against sacred values, I suppose we can, but frankly I don't want to and I doubt it will make any difference to you.
Virgin daughter? Melodramatic. I'm afraid you have made a sacred taboo out of something that is not sacred at all. Peaceful land deals are historically normal, the United States was built on them, Europe was built on them. (Do you have this same attitude when Spain asks the UK for Gibraltar? You are never going to convince a Manhattan real estate developer that asking, simply asking for a land deal is inherently offensive.)
Not even the Danish politicians involved are this precious about it.
Sometimes I get the sense talking to Europeans that they have a fixation with keeping borders static. I understand that Europe has seen a lot of war and that the World Wars were especially devastating and that Europeans today regard the current order as a step forward into a different future. This stability is somewhat romanticized (borders have changed in Europe post-1945, quite a lot), but I can at least respect the ideal itself.
(The ideal tends to glaze over extreme post-WWII "population migration"-genocides of minorities in postwar national borders. It also effectively sweeps the Soviet Union under the rug if you want to talk about the appropriate relationships between larger states and smaller states. So the ideal is extremely recent, only applies to Europe, only to a particular part of Europe, and masks the literal violence that was predicate to establishing it.)
So I don't want to put words in your mouth -- but when I hear that even asking to negotiate is inherently offensive, I have to speculate because what is America even supposed to do with that? What am I arguing here supposed to do with that? Europe denied America the use of many of its bases in the war with Iran, so it's perfectly rational for America to want to prevent that from happening in Greenland, and it's perfectly rational for America to improve its Arctic and Home Defenses through Greenland. So, what, asking to buy some land is itself offensive? Because this is the most peaceful disruption possible to the ideal of stable borders, and if Europe can't negotiate these things rationally it will not like when America also decides to get irrational.
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
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