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 -
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.
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.
That's not exactly true. Turkey took North Cyprus in 1974, still keeps it, and now is a NATO member and almost became a EU member. There are a bunch of other changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_%281914%E2%80%93present%29 None as big as Greenland, but it absolutely has been normal to negotiate the possibility, and it has been occasionally also performed by force without serious consequences too (see Turkey).
Turkey is... very much regarded as a necessary evil, especially after Erdogan's promises of reform turned out to be lies. Turkey is the Token Evil Teammate, the guy who is provisionally on your team for reasons of his own and you recognise he doesn't wish you well but you can't get rid of him because you need him (to defend your southern border).
From my perspective, America is moving towards that position with a speed that honestly is quite shocking to people who were alive in the 90s and who still broadly believe in the America of "Tear down this Wall!" and Hollywood and WW2 and the Berlin Airlift. I don't think Americans quite see this, and those who do tend to dismiss it as TDS*.
*One reason it looks like TDS is that many Europeans can't quite believe that America has changed in this way, and have convinced themselves that it's all the fault of one specific man and that once he's gone the 'real' America will come back. Personally I think that's the logic of an abused spouse, but Boomers love their illusions.
It's not like you have to care, of course, and plenty of people on this board have made it clear that they don't. But being broadly pro-Trump was very common for younger Reds in Europe in 2023: Farage rallies etc. were full of Trump supporters (like me) and now you can barely find any.
America is still America of "Tear down this Wall!" and Hollywood and WW2 and the Berlin Airlift, at least on the right, but Europe isn't the Europe of ancient culture, quest for freedom and resistance to evil. It decided the sins of colonialism are so great that they warrant civilizational suicide, and if the population is not on board with this, it has to be oppressed for their own good. The relationship changed because Europe changed. And tbh, in America right now the relationship with Europe is not bothering anybody much for that exact reason - the right just doesn't see how it can benefit America in its current circumstances (the left wants what Europe wants, but they don't need any allies in that really). Europe is certainly not very willing to defend even itself, let alone help US to do any would police things like getting rid of Iranian nukes. Speaking of which, Europe needs Hormuz open much more than the US does, as far as I can see, but they don't seem to be inclined to do anything substantial about it. So the question is - how much this relationship is working for America anymore?
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