For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
The two sides here are
1: 
I support independence in theory but it just won't work right now, sorry, we have to protect you from the Cheeto
2: 
Yes, independence please. I don't want my precious tax kroner to go to 
oh and I guess this whole thing is in reply to 90s pop singer Björk making an official statement supporting their independence, but who cares really
Denmark giving transfers to Greenland increases demand for Danish goods themselves. It's similar to Germans whining about them subsidising "lazy" Greeks. That's not how capitalism works, under it spending of any kind can create employment, and imports by Greeks were financing Germany's low fiscal deficit, since current surpluses were high while maintaining employment.
So under capitalism purely looking from "selfish" economic perspective :
Denmark gains demand for its goods form Greenland increasing its own output and employment.
Greenland gets access to more goods and services than it would be able to if it were independent.
This isn't anti-independence, just that Greenland losing out on transfers will likely reduce its imports. But at the same time, Greenland having its own currency may also allow it to spend in ways it can't currently ie improve productivity, employment so the loss of transfers may be somewhat offset.
Quite different from say, USSR giving transfers to Cuba. Since USSR operated under a centrally planned full employment economy, any transfer meant loss of resources but no higher employment (since it was already at full employment). Very different from capitalism.
In this case:
The USSR lost access to oil and other goods which it could've sold to other countries for foreign exchange or real goods/services while not gaining additional employment.
Cuba gained acesss to real goods from the USSR allowing it to have higher standard of living.
Completely agree. Greenlandic people have a crystal-clear understanding of their situation. According to the people I spoke with, they overwhelmingly want to be independent but most acknowledge the need to develop local industries first for it to be sustainable
Specifically, their natural resources need a lot more investment in exploration (which is ongoing!) to determine whether any can economically be exploited