Scrapbook photo 1
Scrapbook photo 2
Scrapbook photo 3
Scrapbook photo 4
Sai (saizai)
8,751 followers|2,658,328 views


Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
This is definitely NSFW and very uncanny-valley creepy (as well as rather cringe-inducing for me in parts, where they have very realistic dolls in parts, with metal skeletons etc sticking out, or sudden changes in realism, like the doll's neck). However, it's also kinda fascinating.

I wonder where this'll be in another decade or two.
Filip H.F. “FiXato” Slagter's profile photoJohn Poteet's profile photoxizar's profile photo
+John Poteet Check your adjectives, bro, as I'm none of those. You're going to complain that 47% of the US population doesn't have a place anymore? (numbers based on figuring half of the US is male, and about 5% of the US is gay.) Seems more like you're cat-calling up the wrong tree. If a straight dude can't get a family going, that's a problem with that particular dude, not an indicator of society's decline.

I thought your joke about the cold feet was pretty funny, at first. Now I'm kind of wondering if you're actually threatened by dildos and vibrators.

Either way: If people want robosex dolls, I hope they get them. If people don't want robosex dolls, I hope no one forces them to own one.
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
During my first six months of graduate school I was stalked and sexually harassed by a guy in my cohort. We were both about thirty years old, both from the South, both thrilled to be … [Read More]
Joshua O'Madadhain's profile photo
Thanks for sharing this. Powerful stuff, and well worth relating (the good and the bad).

On the lighter side, the definition of a mixologist in the Medium post cracked me the hell up. :D
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
Further question: given that Trump believes the election was "rigged" by (a) negative media coverage of him and (b) internal machinations within the opposition party, how would he, as president, act to prevent such "rigging"?
Thought for the day: Trump is trying to preemptively discredit the election as "rigged," giving him a natural out (and way to rally his troops to a TV station) if he loses. But if he wins, what does this mean he'll say about the 2020 election? And if he loses that, and says it's "rigged," does that mean he would refuse to step down, and claim the election was invalid?
95 comments on original post
Ed S's profile photoMichael Verona's profile photo
I'm guessing a future President Trump's prevention of such putative "rigging" would take the form of eliminating democracy, likely by manipulated voting or vote counting. Whether he could amass sufficient political power to accomplish this is an open question.
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
Which of the following is the strongest motivating factor in your choice for the US presidential election? If you're not allowed to vote in the US, e.g. because you're not a US citizen, pretend you are. This is not asking whom you'll vote for, but why.
120 votes  -  votes visible to Public
Against Clinton
Against Trump
For Clinton
For Trump
I am not for or against Clinton or Trump
Nila Jones's profile photoJohn Wehrle's profile photoGray Embry's profile photoSai (saizai)'s profile photo
+Gray Embry It's intentionally forced choice, so that even a small difference in roughly equal factors like that will show.
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
On this, I agree with +Amber Yust and the author.

I note, however, a somber point. Suppose that Trump does, as the author hopes, lose by "historic margins". The largest margin in US history is 26% (Harding 60% v Cox 34%, 1920); let's suppose Trump loses by 30%, an implausibly large number.

That would still leave 25% of the country having voted for him What is the proportion of that that is, at its root, truly hateful? What proportion of such views can the country sustain?

I would like to believe that most of his supporters support him for reasons not fundamentally attributable to hatred or bigotry — things like distrust of Hillary, belief that Trump would be economically better, party loyalty, Supreme Court balance, interventionism, etc. Reasonable people can disagree on such things.

What is the portion of unreasonable people?

To me it seems that even 10% of the country being overtly fascist, à la BNP, Jobbik, Golden Dawn, etc, is a terrible thing.

And let's be honest, Trump will get more than 25%. A more plausible, still very high margin of 10% (Roosevelt 1940, Reagan 1980), and 3rd party votes of ~5%, would have Trump at 42.5% of the vote.

Are at least a quarter of his supporters simply fascist, white supremacist, or nationalist (things I would consider outside the ambit of 'reasonable people can disagree')?
I want to preface this article with a specific note that you are not required to do the work to change someone else's mind, nor are you required to put up with someone being hateful around you.

But if you want to change the minds of those who are being hateful, this article lays out some good approaches for doing so.
Anyone clinging to a bad idea needs a face-saving way to back out.
10 comments on original post
Michael Verona's profile photoChristof Harper's profile photoSai (saizai)'s profile photo
+Christof Harper I agree with the article in the sense of its discussion of how to approach changing others' minds, giving people ways to save face, not challenging axioms directly / not talking past each other, etc.

I obviously do not agree that everyone supporting Trump is doing so for hate based reasons, though also I do not think most people who are reasonably described that way would self-identify that way. Most racism and sexism these days e.g. is covert, even in anonymous self-report, but still quite existent in objective measures like pre/post blinding results.

My anti-nationalism is basically two things:
a) nationalism is strongly correlated with fascism and authoritarianism, which I object to independently
b) I don't agree, morally, with an insular view of whom one ought to help (e.g. just people one happens to have been born in the same current nation-state as) at whose expense (e.g. people who happen to have been born in an 'opponent' nation-state).

It also seems to me to be correlated with a "we're the best country" belief bias, which is simply false for almost all values of "best", for any value of "country" — and I prefer to have beliefs match facts, to the extent that they are empirically testable.
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
If you're voting in CA, take a look at this re Prop 60.
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
Cindy Brown's profile photoSai (saizai)'s profile photoKimberly Hurlbut's profile photo
See... I was an operator when most people were still using just phones. :o) I loved the job a lot! 
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
This is a satirical "transcription" of the second debate, mocking both Trump and Hillary. It's interesting to see straight satire, not just hitting one side or the other.

h/t +Christof Harper
In case you missed it, here's what happened.
Romeo Graham's profile photoTodd Vierling's profile photo
It's very difficult to do blanket satire in a situation when Poe's law is frighteningly easy to invoke by accident.
Add a comment...

Sai (saizai)

Shared publicly  - 
Webcomic: I wish you well, have a good life, please don't write
Christof Harper's profile photoSai (saizai)'s profile photoMichael Verona's profile photo
+Sai - Both literally and figuratively.

There's an ugly underlying calculus that comes up every few decades - more often if we expand our scope beyond the notional "West" and the arbitrary "first world" - around the cost/benefit ratio of actual humans: headcount vs. resources, labor pool vs. available work, etc. At some point, usually under the influence of a sociopathic business school grad, somebody starts talking about the social equivalent of "workforce reduction" and how best to sell it to those who aren't reduced.

In that calculus, dead is just a variable.
Add a comment...
Sai's Collections
Hi! My full name is Sai; my handle is saizai.

Right now, I'm primarily working on Make Your Laws (G+), a practical liquid democracy project. I also have CogSai (G+), a YouTube channel about cognitive science.

- I was twice suspended :-/

MYL disclaimer: things I post to my own stream are my own musings, not official positions on behalf of Make Your Laws. If I don't mention MYL, they're not even that, they're just my own personal political beliefs — something I do not mix with the non-partisan, systemic PoV I take with MYL. If you're reporting on MYL, please respect the difference; I do not want to be a public figure, and my personal political beliefs are not relevant.

If I know you outside G+, or if you have something interesting for us to talk about that hasn't come up in comments, please send me a private message. Unfortunately, I just get too many adds to track them. If I don't add you back, that's only a comment about my lack of mental bandwidth, not about you; I still enjoy good crunchy conversation, though.

About G+:

G+ games:
Mafia/Werewolf signup; games #1 #2 

I'm interested in lots and lots of things; this is only a small part of them. See my website for more:

[Last updated: ~2013]
Bragging rights
I'm mononymous; my full legal name is just "Sai".
Basic Information
Other names