this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
113 points (99.1% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14240 readers
927 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 73 points 1 week ago (1 children)

USA economic benefits

lol. lmao, even.

[–] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's telling the only immediate benefits of joining the empire (besides 1 million dollars each that would never happen) that this rabid, pro American dipshit could come up with were better tax rates and 'corporate benefits' lmao

[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Americans do not see themselves as part of the proletariat, but temporarily embarrassed billionaires. This rube no doubt concerns himself with tax rates and corporate bailouts because someday, he will totally be the CEO of a Fortune 500.

[–] shath@hexbear.net 53 points 1 week ago (1 children)

corporate benefits

dawg what

[–] Crucible@hexbear.net 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The entire population will be forced to work at walmart

[–] shath@hexbear.net 23 points 1 week ago

the corporation certainly is benefitting

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 51 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There's no way the US is paying that much when they can just park some aircraft carriers outside it for significantly less and call it theirs while daring the other side to do something about it.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Aircraft carriers ~~cost like 50bn per hour just to maintain~~ are free and it's a waste for murikans not to use them.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah but they already have them and an operating cost for assets continually exists whether you use them or not.

[–] ChaosMaterialist@hexbear.net 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This was basically Bill Clinton's whole foreign policy in a nutshell.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They already own Greenland. This annexation thing is so weird

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Clearly some faction of the US boug does not agree with our interpretation of the "international community" as the US empire.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I have a theory that the people currently in power bought into the propaganda as much as anyone.

They believe the lies about the “international community”, and the US being a “good guy cop”. And that makes them angry. They want a bad and strong USA, that fully controls the world directly.

Why would they dismantle USAID otherwise? They actually believed the propaganda that USAID was just helping people around the world.

They understand the empire less than us? Idk.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah i think you're right but it's so... Stupid. They're creating a world where they control less rather than more.

I think perhaps this is motivated by a belief that they need direct control because the indirect control that the liberal order built is not securely in their control in the new emerging world. It has potential to build ties to other powers that undermine US power. Direct control does not have that potential.

They are future-proofing, consolidating control over whatever they can, while they still can. They have a very real fear that China will act in the future.

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That would make more sense to me if the soft power they were destroying was actually expensive, in terms of money/materials or time/people.

USAID was a pitiful amount. It was barely any effort.

I think the attack on Venezuela and their new stance to just take over everything around them is more indicative of what you’re saying.

But dismantling soft power still seems like a shot on the foot. With soft power they would be able to keep more control over Europe, South and Central America, Africa etc. To shore up more support for their more overt actions.

I think that if they don’t actually believe the crazy world building they are acting on, they put themselves into a corner by running on and amplifying the most illogical, contradictory and self-defeating conspiracies. So they don’t have really any other path than to dismantle “globalist communist trans”, and act like THE BIG DOG.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But dismantling soft power still seems like a shot on the foot. With soft power they would be able to keep more control over Europe, South and Central America, Africa etc. To shore up more support for their more overt actions.

You're missing my point. They do not believe that they can compete with soft power, they have convinced themselves that China's soft power will be much greater than America's soft power in the near future.

If you convince yourself of this then the only option that exists to compete is hard power and they are exerting that hard power now while they still can before China has fully reached the peak of its growing power.

The soft power has no value at all in a future where it is smaller than their rival. It is only valuable if you are the one with the most. They are exiting specialisation in soft power and instead specialising in hard power, China will take the US' role internationally as the soft power projector.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

They understand the empire less than us? Idk.

We actually study it. They just collect checks and send emails.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 11 points 1 week ago

I meant it as in "the US in all practicality already owns Greenland". They've got mineral rights, they've got bases and docking rights, they've basically got control of all the things that make Greenland an asset

[–] ParadeDuGrotesque@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Who would win? A big fat static target of an aircraft carrier or a small submarine who can go to Greenland, torpedo the big fat target, and go back home?

Before you say "Murica!!!", remember that the US Navy has a history of being surprised and kicked in the nuts by other nations submarines.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The europeans would have to have some backbone to do anything like that though and they do not. The entirety of Europe's establishment are careerists, none of them are willing to do anything that risks their own lives.

There isn't a single spine between them. They are all middle managers in temperament.

[–] ClathrateG@hexbear.net 29 points 1 week ago

Lol

Denmark would absolutely give up Greenland to avoid military conflict with the US and 'preserve NATO'

[–] sammer510@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago

Implying that any country in the EU has the stones to do that. They're a bunch of cowards

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 13 points 1 week ago

And history shows us what happens after the US Navy gets kicked in the nuts. The US kills hundreds of thousands of people. Sometimes millions.

[–] jack@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago

whose submarine are you referring to?

[–] Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

better taxes

*the US will claim the right to tax you wherever you are in the world. Genuinely blows my mind how insanely punitive the US tax system is. We pay a lot in Europe, and social security taxes are incredibly regressive, but... we do get some modicum of social security out of it at least

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago

Also at least some amount of the tax money goes towards "not the military" outside the us

[–] itsraining@lemmygrad.ml 42 points 1 week ago

Standard Burgerland "we can buy anything" attitude

[–] Meltyheartlove@hexbear.net 38 points 1 week ago

Th€ $$€ttl€r KKKolonial KKKountry that tri€$$ to d€port Native Americans will give Greenlandic Inuit people who form the majority a million each.

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 36 points 1 week ago

Enhance.....

Take $500 billion and make 500,000 people millionaires.

Enhance...

Take the annual military budget around $1 Trillion, and make 1 million people millionaires.

Enhance......

Take one Nvidia and make 4 million people millionaires. stalin-comical-spoon

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As much as Denmark sucks the inuit get some pretty nice stuff out of it - compared to the American offer at least.
Independence would be better, as long as they have production and schools and universities, which Denmark hasn't built, but has gotten better at, but not enough.... Look I'm not trying to apologise for Denmark in any way. I just want to make it clear how shitty of an offer that is.

Denmark transfers 672.3 million dollars to Greenlands home rule every year. This amount is tied to inflation. There's also an additional 156 million each year to pay for police, law stuff and military. Which is because Greenland is a colony, I am aware, I am not saying "Denmark good" I am trying to illustrate how "offer bad".

There's also a series of specific programmes for citizens of Greenland in need of aid [2] which, looking at us domestic policy, I doubt would be matched. Offer bad.

Travelling to and from Greenland isn't something you need to finance with your one-time payment of a million dollars, instead you can apply for a state grant

Then there's also the benefits all danish citizens get: Free healthcare (for now, seems like the liberals really want to kill it) free education (for now, too) and a (meagre) pay while you're studying (partially now. You only get 4 years these days, fucking rats).

Again not saying "Denmark good" but I am trying to say... They're delusional? The people speaking about "purchasing" Greenland like it was a plot of land, have done no research, looked into nothing. Their ideas are so detached from reality, it kinda scares me. And they're very chauvinistic too, like the whole "better taxes, better business, gets to be American" thing.

[–] footfaults@lemmygrad.ml 31 points 1 week ago

2.4T to buy Greenland? Yeah I'm sure the bond market is on board with that. There's already signs that the bond market is shaky, so I'm sure this will totally make things better.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 30 points 1 week ago

This doofus genuinely thinks the US will give Denmark more money than it's given Israel over the last 30 years?

[–] Beaver@hexbear.net 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oh, I totally believe that Greenlanders would be interested in $1 million each. I like imagining what I would do with a million. I like imagine what I would do with a pony. It's very fun to imagine scenarios that will never happen.

[–] vegeta1@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago

Like me leaving this damn planet and going back home hahahahahahahahahaha.... I'm gonna die here vegeta-pain

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 week ago

New Puerto Rico incoming.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 20 points 1 week ago

So only downsides, huh?

[–] WokePalpatine@hexbear.net 18 points 1 week ago

Maybe he's named Greenman because he's native to Greenland and we need to listen to him for IdPol purposes.

[–] moss_icon@hexbear.net 14 points 1 week ago

Americans stop taking the piss challenge (impossible)

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Is this supposed to be a we have established you can be bought, now we are negotiating the price bit?

[–] mendiCAN@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

not to be that poster but "who tf even is this and where might i get what theyre smoking?"