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 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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link