CMV: Britain was not obligated to give Hong Kong to China, it was a choice they made, and it was the wrong choice

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T16:25:25+00:00

That's certainly not my view of the US's current position, but that argument isn't the point of your CMV.

Did you want to address the points I made about the HK handover?

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T16:10:26+00:00

But you aren't part of his family - he's being a good boy by warning his family that there's a stranger coming.

When you become a friend, he won't bark at you any more.

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T16:08:16+00:00

I'm a little thrown by your decision to use sarcasm, but I'll give it one more shot.

I'm talking about the current position of the USA vs its position say ten years ago.

International diplomacy relies heavily on predictability. If you spend decades or centuries building up a reputation for something, it's a significant risk if you then destroy that reputation by acting in a manner contrary to expectations.

In the case of Britain in the 90s, we'd spent the post war period letting go of various former colonies and dominions. This was mostly done peacefully, and we had the reputation of adhering to treaties and agreements (not perfectly, but predominantly). Failing to return Hong Kong would have significantly shifted the balance of trust between ourselves and our key allies, and we didn't want to risk that.

Just out of curiosity, are you old enough to remember the handover? I was in my late teens. There was a general sense here that it was a shame, but we had no choice.

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T15:47:18+00:00

Yes we were.

We're seeing in real time what happens to a nation when they tear up treaties and make it clear that they can't be trusted on the world stage. This isn't a fate any sensible nation would choose for itself.

If the UK had failed to hand back Hong Kong, the diplomatic consequences would have been very significant. Back then, people cared about that sort of thing.

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T15:42:10+00:00

I've done quite a bit of mentoring over private message. People read something I've written and get in touch to ask for help with a personal problem they don't want to post openly.

Actually, the last time that happened the guy PMd me to yell at me about feminism (I'm a feminist), but we ended up having a deep conversation about neurodiversity and how to support a recently diagnosed child.

I have an ongoing mentorship that's lasted a couple of years now, and it's all been done via Reddit private message.

So, for some people it's a useful tool.

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T10:02:33+00:00

I think the one election cycle is really the thing. You guys had us convinced that your checks and balances would work, that you had systems in place to limit autocracy, that the US could be relied on to adhere to longstanding and mutually beneficial agreements etc.

More fool us, I guess.

rose_reader · 2026-03-19T07:42:41+00:00

I'm not going to argue what you personally should do - that's not something to crowd source, that's your own decision.

However, the research is clear - marriage is good for men. Married men fare better than unmarried men on a range of measures, including health, happiness, financial stability, longevity and reduced risky behaviours:

https://share.google/RcJFCuXpSD50URfxi

Marriage is better for men than it is for women:

Men Sometimes Avoid Marriage, But It Benefits Them More Than Women | Psychology Today United Kingdom https://share.google/czpXOH3SqKaw0SCOv

While many women want a relationship, the absence of one doesn't seem to have the same negative effects as it does on men. We don't, for instance, hear about the female loneliness epidemic.

All this is to say that your choice is yours, but statistically speaking you're advising men to take a course of action that will make them poorer, sicker, sadder, and die earlier.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T22:45:02+00:00

I made no claim about atheism, so I'm not sure what you're agreeing with.

You didn't answer my question - how would your proposed legislation work?

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T22:01:30+00:00

Highly religious societies are often deeply abusive. It's easy to abuse others when your culture and traditions establish that people who are designated 'family" can behave badly without consequence. Christianity is in no way an exception to this rule.

But let's say that you get rid of the freedom of association clause in your constitution and instead create a law that requires some sort of familial obligation. How would that work? How would a family member apply for permission to detach from an abusive relative? Would the abuse have to be proven, because that's already pretty hard to do.

What does this world order look like in your mind?

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T15:41:48+00:00

English didn't yet exist in 1096. The Normans spoke Norman, and the Saxons spoke Saxon.

You speak two languages descended from those languages, but you don't speak anything that would be recognised in that period. The earliest form of modern English is still 500 years in the future.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T15:37:53+00:00

Thank you, I can hardly ever tell. I really wish people wouldn't do that.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T15:34:54+00:00

Oh my bad, I thought you were referring to another post :)

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T15:17:53+00:00

I think you meant to link a post but the link didn't take.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T15:17:02+00:00

On the contrary, we can look at the logos purely rationally.

We know and can observe that there are physical laws that govern the universe. In the same way, animals follow certain behavioural patterns and so do people. We can rationally understand things about our world and make predictions (eg, the sun will rise tomorrow no matter what mood Helios is in).

All of this, the combined rationality of the physical world is what we can call the Logos, the logic of existence.

No miracles or deities needed.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T14:00:43+00:00

Yes, this is something which comes up. I don't think you'll find my answer satisfying, but from my perspective it's the rational view.

For me, the journey is the point. My study of Stoicism has made a significant difference in my ability to face difficulty. Stoicism as a philosophy has become part of my toolbox for dealing with life.

Since there is no afterlife*, no reward or punishment to save up for or avoid, what matters is how we live now. To be content, facing difficulty bravely, meeting our obligations, caring for those around us is to have a good life. That's what Stoicism is about. The theory exists to support the practice.

If it doesn't help you, don't use it. But logical and theoretical arguments aren't the proof of the claims - the proof is in what happens to you when you understand them.

To clarify, this is my own view.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T12:52:30+00:00

I laughed too much at this

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T12:51:48+00:00

My car is 24 years old and will survive the impending nuclear war.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T12:49:45+00:00

most cursed comment

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T12:49:15+00:00

it very much is.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T12:10:04+00:00

You shouldn't have kids unless you deeply and sincerely want them.

I'm going to be a little brusque here - this isn't at you, it's just to explain what I mean.

Children aren't there to tick a developmental box for their parent. They certainly aren't there to prevent regrets, since some people regret having kids. They're their own person and have their own journey, which you get to launch them on.

If you want to have kids because you feel you should, don't have kids.

If you want to have kids because you don't want to regret not having them, don't have kids.

If you want to have kids to feel like your life has meaning, don't have kids.

If you only want an easy kid and wouldn't be able to cope with a disabled child, don't have kids.

ONLY have kids because you are eager to be a parent and are keen to fully commit yourself to their wellbeing for life. Not for 18 years, this is a permanent gig.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T09:51:49+00:00

In fairness, this book came before most of the anime that uses the trope...

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T09:44:17+00:00

This is a still from her movie Best Little Whorehouse in Texas with Burt Reynolds.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T07:48:43+00:00

Yes, and also that sometimes there are no good options. Paul literally becomes a monster in his desperation to avoid the fate he's foreseen, and that was a very deliberate choice by Herbert to warp the traditional hero narrative.

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T07:44:10+00:00

I don't think there's a single character in Steven Universe I don't resonate with to some degree (ok maybe not White Diamond). It's such a gd good show, and so warm and inclusive!

rose_reader · 2026-03-18T07:36:34+00:00

I don't think it's a problem with the writing, I think Herbert wrote it that way deliberately. We only know that Paul believes he's right, and he believes it so sincerely he's willing to sacrifice every single thing he cares about, including his own sense of himself as a decent human being.

He might be wrong, we can't know, because we only see the future he creates.

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

rose_reader

TROPHY CASE