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