AMA (YYW)

Why would you think for profit prisons need to be replaced?

Because they don't help with rehabilitation and there is strong motive to stretch out sentences and squash many in as small a space as one can get away with among other things, all these reasons to shut down private prisons support me on a quest for a rehabilitation-obsessed system of justice that cares less about retribution than about deterrence when delving into the harsher forms of punishment.

What is your opinion on immigration reform?

What is your opinion of Aung Suu Kyi?

>Immigration reform

What do you mean by "Immigration reform"?

Thank you. That was quite conclusive as compared to the answers I am used to. Your veiw seems very American centric. That is not in and of itself good or bad it just stands out.

Do you agree with the constitution of the United States of America and the bill of rights? Are there things about them you think could be improved?

That is an incredibly complicated question I can't even begin to answer fully or even partially to any reasonable degree of satisfaction in this kind of a context.  Nonetheless, the least unsatisfactory answer I can give you is this: yes and no.  Now, that's obviously an unsatisfactory answer.  So, here's some explanation...

The constitution was written to address the sort of structural deficits left gapingly open by the Articles of Confederation, but there was far from contemporaneous agreement "that" the absence of a central power was a problem; much less was there anything approximating agreement as to the much more difficult question of "If we are going to have a central government over all the states, what should that look like?"

Their answer was to create a federal system in which only those powers delegated to the federal government were within the federal government's province to do.  That was the theory at least.  The federal government has gotten a lot more powerful since 1789 than it was in 1789.  There are parts of that I agree with, and parts that I do not agree with.  Nonetheless, the idea was that the states retained general power; the federal government had limited power, and all those rights and powers not held by the state or delegated to the federal government would be retained by the people.   

I think the basic structure of government created by the constitution is a fairly good one.  I am largely in agreement with the Federalist Papers, to that effect.  So, to the extent that's agreement, and to the extent that I've said I agree here, I agree with it.  That's not to imply that beyond this I necessarily disagree, but I don't want people to go off making inferences about what I think based on what I didn't say.  People seem inclined to do that for some very strange reason.

For example, one thing I am very, very much in agreement with, though, is the constitution's difficulty to amend.  We can talk about that more at another time. 

Now, as for the Bill of Rights... 

Without enumerating the particularities of the rights seemingly codified by the Bill of Rights, the basic idea there was that it was really necessary to set out what rights *the people* had, after so much authority was just granted to the newly founded federal government and a very great deal of other authority was seemingly retained by the states. 

There were some out there who had some reservations about writing a bill of rights because they were afraid that fools (read: textualists) would later come along with the incredibly stupid idea that the ONLY rights recognized by the constitution were those written in the literal text.  That's a very stupid idea, because of the literal words of the latter amendments, as well as the general understanding of what the constitution was supposed to do at the time it was written.

Nonetheless, the language "The people retain without exception all rights granted to them by nature's God and natural law." or something like that should have appeared as the first amendment."  Then, free speech, association, press, petition, assembly, etc., and the rest should have followed. 

Obviously, the Amendments as written are fundamentally good ideas. 

I believe that the only thing I can know with certainty is that I am experiencing something even if that experience does not reflect reality in any way.

I do tend to accept my experience as a reflection of reality since it is the only experience available to me and if I accept my perceptions as observations of reality then there are certain inferences that I can make about that reality. Especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method.

Sounds like a state of something approximating existential doubt.  Probably not good to linger there too long. 

Just carefully observing my epistemological limits.

That was surprsingly informative. I will think about my position.

You admitted in a call that you think the conservatives will win more elections lol.

>You admitted in a call that you think the conservatives will win more elections lol.

No, I didn't.

What take you so long to come on here?

If you could what would you changed on DA?

What's the best Christmas gift you will GIVE this year?

I suppose I should have been more specific. Would you be in favor of limiting or expanding the visa system?

Yup. You said that Democrats are having a difficult time figuring out how to win elections, and followed that up with a prediction indicating that Republicans will win more elections in the near future. 

>Yup. You said that Democrats are having a difficult time figuring out how to win elections, and followed that up with a prediction indicating that Republicans will win more elections in the near future. 

No.  What I said was that Democrats are having a hard time figuring out that identity politics are not a successful political strategy, and to the extent that they continue to utilize that failed strategy they will be limited electoraly as a result. 

So, I can see how maybe what I said may not have resonated at the level of detail that I just explained.  But, I never made a general statement that democrats were having a hard time how to win elections.  I also never predicted that Republicans "will win more elections in the near future."  

We did discuss some hypothetical situations where *particular candidates* (e.g., Hillary Clinton) would cause the Democrats to lose elections if they were nominated.  We also discussed whether Beto O'Roruke had anything approximating a viable political future as a national political figure.  But, that was it.  The fact that I said O'Roruke was a failed candidate who made the identical mistakes Marco Rubio made in the 2016 primary -- which I did -- does not mean that I think, in a general sense, "Republicans will win more elections in the future". 

Why would you hook up with Ben Shapiro if he was gay?

What are the three languages you speak?

You support increasing federal spending in many different areas, e.g. safety net, healthcare, education. How would you finance that? Are there any areas in which you support decreasing federal spending? Do federal budget deficits really matter as much as everyone says they do?

What would your ideal 2020 Democratic presidential ticket look like?

Who are your top five least favorite Democratic politicians?

Is there any chance you would ever run for public office? If so, when? And which office would you run for?

Which political issues are you most likely to be wrong about?

You did seem awfully skeptical about the Dems. You didn't straight up state that the conservatives have won America over in the long run, but you certainly said that if the Democrats didn't figure out how to speak to the American people and display their purpose of election as anything other than "Me not orange man!", then you predicted that they wouldn't be successful in the future. Both parties are have immense and unmistakable animosity towards each other. We are more polarized than ever and it may be inching (if not already at) the point of no return. Many liberals are dumbasses and most likely won't find that link with our populace. Again, no clear clarification that you were absolutely sure that Dems won't win out in the future, but with context and an understanding of modern politics, the statement implies that Republicans are at a significant advantage. Here's the kicker, Generation Z is far more conservative than Millenials are, and soon many more of the Z's (dunno what to call them) will be able to vote, and most likely red. Even though liberals might win 2020, they are becoming widely hated among Gen Z. Look it up if you don't believe it.

What do you think of the following quotation?

>I suppose I should have been more specific.

Well, yes... but if I said something like "I support immigration reform" it's like... yeah, well... who doesn't?  The question is "what do you mean by *immigration reform*?"  After all, when I use that term there's a fairly good chance that I mean something different than, say, Trump. 

It might be more useful to get at this at a lower level of resolution, before we talk about the particularities of the current American visa system.

So, in a general sense, I support strictly limiting immigration in most if not all forms.  But, that DOES NOT mean that I support limiting American engagement in the world, or that I disagree with the principle that the United States should do something about the fact that there are thousands of just absolutely horrible manifestations of human suffering all over the world. 

(While tangential to your question, for the purpose of clarity, I obviously support foreign aid for the purposes of at least improving human conditions in foreign countries to the degree necessary that their internal political climates are at least stable.)

I would functionally abolish the process of asylum requests in the United States for all but the most extreme cases.  As a general principal, fleeing general social or economic conditions conditions that have manifested to the point that there is not a functional state within the borders of any particular asylum seeker's own country -- even if those conditions have manifested to a degree that actual physical safety is on the line -- is NOT a legitimate reason to seek asylum. 

What does that mean?  Here's an example:  fleeing gang violence or tremendous poverty is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum, at the border or anywhere else.  So, no Syrian refugees, at all, enter the United States in my framework, if the ONLY reason they're fleeing is because of ISIS, or something like that. 

So, what IS a legitimate reason to seek asylum?  As a general principal, a person is deserving of asylum only when attributes or actions of that individual (or a member of that individual's immediate family) have placed his or her physical safety at risk to a degree that they are unable to seek redress by political or legal means within their own country.  

Well, what on earth does that mean?  Here's a few examples to illustrate the point: 

A Chinese national has spied on the Chinese government for the United States in ways that have meaningfully helped the United States, and Chinese Intelligence has caught on to that person's espionage.  That person will be executed if they are caught, and they are under investigation.  That person is a prime candidate for asylum in the United States.

A Saudi woman was raped by a member of her family, and became impregnated.  She obtained an abortion.  The Saudi Government as tried and convicted her of violating sharia law and she is scheduled to be publicly caned and then  then executed in accordance with Saudi "law".  That person is a prime candidate for asylum in the United States.  

A Chechen 14 year old was denounced as being gay by an older brother, and he has been reported to the Kadyrov "government" and has been detained and is being tortured and mutilated by the Islamic "religious police" in Chechnya.  He has never been convicted of any crime but is given the ultimatum that he will either leave Chechnya or he will be killed.  That person is a prime candidate for asylum in the United States.

Here are some further examples of individuals who should NOT candidates for asylum in the United States:

A Syrian migrant has spied on ISIS for Israel, and provided meaningful intelligence to the Israeli government but that intelligence did not lead to meaningful advancements of American interests with respect to ISIS.  Having applied for and been denied asylum in Israel, he has sought asylum from several European countries with whom Israeli intelligence is known to cooperate.  There is no pending threat to his life or safety, and he remains a member of ISIS.  That person should not receive asylum.

An Iranian woman has been raped by a member of her family.  No pregnancy resulted, but she will be publicly caned in accordance with "sharia law".  There is no threat to her life or physical safety beyond the imposition of that "punishment".  No asylum.

A Saudi teenager has been outed by his boyfriend as gay, though he has denounced his boyfriend and denied being gay.  He is found not to have violated the "law" of Saudi Arabia, even though Saudi Arabia has in accordance with the "law" of that country executed the boyfriend.  There is no pending threat to his life.  That person should not receive asylum. 

Now, returning to the visa issue...

I am seriously opposed to granting visas to foreign workers in all but the most extreme circumstances.  This would represent a "limitation" on the current system. 

For example, suppose Google wants "the world's best coder" from Mumbai to come work at its campus in the Bay Area as a software developer.  That is absolutely not an acceptable reason to grant someone a visa.  Hire an American.

On the other hand, suppose Johns Hopkins hospital has a patient who is not medically stable and requires the services of a a highly specialized brain surgeon, or the patient will die.  There are brain surgeons who would be "competent" to perform the surgery, but few surgeries of this kind have ever been performed.  Nonetheless, there exists a surgeon who has successfully performed this particular highly specialized brain surgery more than 20 times in his medical practice in Beijing.  Performing the surgery is an excellent reason to grant someone a visa to work in the United States. 

What does your profile picture say?

All the ones I don't have solid opinions on, I would be most likely to be wrong about because I haven't thought about them to a degree sufficient to have worked out what I think the right thing is or why.  So, the more likely I am to prevaricate about any issue (or at least not take a hard position) the more likely I am to think I'd be wrong if I did take a position on that issue.

So, now you want to know what those issues are...

Abortion is a big one, at least on a philosophical level.  I have a policy prescription for how to deal with abortion, but one that is based on the complexity of that issue.

Genetic editing is another.  While I don't think that issue has entered the level of mainstream discourse yet, with emerging technologies like CRISPR we approach the ability to design people who comport with idealized standards of exceptionalism (read: make designer babies).  There are seriously good things such technology could do (such as edit out debilitating genetic conditions), but there are catastrophically bad things that could be done too (human cloning, to say the very least).  

>What does your profile picture say?

Всегда Вместе, which means "Always Together" 

>What's the best Christmas gift you will GIVE this year?

I have no idea.... probably one of the ones I gave the boyfriend. 

>You did seem awfully skeptical about the Dems.

I am skeptical about the Democrats.  But, that doesn't imply I think that the Republicans have anything approximating a viable political strategy in the long run... which they do not. 

People will forget about Trump and fall to their knees over the next Republican to give a "Make America Great Again" esque speech, which libs don't know how to do.

I explained the Dem's strategy lol. 

>"There is not a single living person, in the history of humanity, who believed what they believed because it was 'rational'. People use reason to justify their opinions post hoc; what actually decides what people believe is rooted subconsciously, and is determined aesthetically. When a person converts from one religion to another, or becomes a capitalist instead of a communist, it is because that aesthetic anchor was picked up and moved, and all of their justifications and arguments then shift to reflect that. As to what can move that anchor, it can be anything from a group of friends or the surrounding culture to family and even God."

So that was one of Skepsekyma's posts on DDO.  I don't remember when or where he said it, but I know that he said it.  There are a lot of complicated ideas in that quote.  Those ideas are too complicated to really meaningfully explore within the character limits of a single post.  Nevertheless, there are some ideas there I agree with and that I disagree with. 

"Man is not rational."

So, that much is immediately obvious to any truly thinking person.  We have the capability to be and to use rationality, but the notion that man is "rational" is little more than hubris and delusion.  Further, even if to some extent man "is" rational insofar as he utilizes his capacity for reason, that doesn't imply that man is "only" rational. 

"Man holds no beliefs for rational reasons."

To the extent that man has the capacity for reason, and holds at least some beliefs on a rational basis, that is false.  Some of people's ideas are rational.  But, many beliefs are not rational.  

But, what Skep was saying there is that for a particular kind of beliefs (namely, metaphysical ones), reason doesn't really enter the domain of justification for them.  That's likely on point, for things like "trying to sort out what good and evil constitute".  

The only way we have beliefs about good and evil is because we have values, and we have some sort of intuitive sense of how they ought to be rank ordered in their application and in the abstract.  You don't get that because of "reason" -- no matter how much Sam Harris might contend otherwise. 

"that aesthetic anchor was picked up and moved"

I have a hard time figuring out what that means.  I think it's referential to the sense of how and why we rank order values in their abstraction and application shifting from a prior state of affairs to a new state of affairs.  But I don't know.  It's not clear.  Much of the rest of the quote, I'm not sure what it means.  

>People will forget about Trump and fall to their knees over the next Republican to give a "Make America Great Again" esque speech, which libs don't know how to do.

I disagree.  Populism is going to die.  It's on life support now.