site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17998 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.

@porkpiehat, last week:

Trump just posted that the US made an agreement with Denmark and Greenland gives the US [...] the right [...] to veto any foreign intervention on the island.

From the treaty (my emphasis):

“Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities” means sectors or activities determined to be particularly sensitive, including but not limited to critical infrastructure and the extraction of resources.

X.

Foreign direct investment and other activities

Given the threat to national security and public order posed by increased efforts by adversaries to expand influence and control in Greenland, 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 [...] within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland [...], unless agreed between the Parties [...].
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.
Relevant authorities in the Kingdom of Denmark shall engage in close consultation with relevant United States authorities and other partners. The specific modalities for that close consultation shall be determined by the relevant authorities.

This very much does not cover "any foreign investment". If a Chinese company wants to buy a hotel in Greenland (but not next to an US base), then nothing in the treaty prevents that. More generally, there is some vagueness wrt what constitutes "significant influence" or a "NATO partner", and if something is a Particularly Sensitive Sector or not. All of this interpreting will be done by Denmark and Greenland.

So the US gets a veto in some areas, but in some grey areas, the other side gets to interpret the treaty.

Read my comment again. You switched a word to completely change the meaning. As predicted by me, the agreement broadly matched Trump’s statement.

Oops, I stand corrected. You said "intervention", not "investment". In fact, your comment was solely about the military side of things, which I concede Trump delivered on. (Though personally, I would also call it "duh". The worries of Greenland stationing Russian IRBMs or allowing Chinese infantry to decimate their polar bear population were probably not things which kept US strategists up at night. The main update for the military provisions is that they no longer depend on NATO. The economic provisions seem much more interesting.)

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