Scott argues against the concept of 'stochastic terrorism' by showing it's applied inconsistently across the political spectrum, examining and rejecting various proposed distinctions about what criticism should be allowed, and advocating instead for a liberal solution where all criticism is permitted but violence is always the perpetrator's sole responsibility. Longer summary

Scott critiques the concept of 'stochastic terrorism' - the idea that harsh criticism of a group can make you responsible for subsequent violence against that group. He provides numerous examples across the political spectrum (from Trump to Muslims to health insurance CEOs) to show the concept is applied inconsistently and opportunistically. He examines and rejects various proposed distinctions (harsh vs mild criticism, policies vs individuals, powerful vs weak targets) as either arbitrary or contradictory. Scott argues for a liberal solution: any criticism should be allowed, violence is never legitimate, and perpetrators bear 100% responsibility for their actions. He acknowledges some edge cases around incitement and hate speech laws, but maintains that normal legal frameworks handle these better than the 'stochastic terrorism' concept. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on polyamory, providing data and addressing concerns about relationship satisfaction, child-rearing, and abuse risks in poly relationships. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous posts about polyamory, addressing various arguments and providing data where possible. He discusses statistics on relationship satisfaction and child-rearing in poly vs. monogamous relationships, addresses concerns about abuse risks, and shares personal observations. The post touches on cultural perceptions of polyamory, its prevalence among different groups, and potential societal impacts. Scott also reflects on some new insights he gained from the discussion, particularly around child-rearing in poly relationships and abuse risks. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues strongly for basic income over basic jobs guarantees, citing numerous advantages of basic income and potential pitfalls of basic jobs programs. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues strongly against the idea of a basic jobs guarantee, preferring a basic income guarantee instead. He presents 11 main arguments: 1) Basic jobs don't help the disabled, 2) They don't help caretakers, 3) They don't help parents, 4) Jobs are actually a big cause of poverty, 5) Basic jobs may not pay for themselves through useful work, 6) It's hard to deal with bad workers in a basic jobs system, 7) It's hard for workers to escape bad workplaces, 8) Basic income could fix private industry while basic jobs could destroy it, 9) Basic income supports personal development while basic jobs prevent it, 10) Basic income puts everyone on the same side while basic jobs preserve class divisions, and 11) Work itself is often unpleasant and meaningless. He then addresses counterarguments, including concerns about UBI's effects, the need for work to provide meaning, and the potential benefits of public works. Scott concludes that while basic jobs might be better than nothing, they risk hijacking the utopian potential of basic income and perpetuating many problems of the current system. Shorter summary

Ozy responds to Spandrell's article on sexual deviancy, refuting claims about homosexuality, female paraphilias, and transgender experiences. Longer summary

This post is a response to Spandrell's article on sexual deviancy. Ozy argues against Spandrell's points on homosexuality, female paraphilias, and transgender women. They discuss animal homosexuality, the role of environment in sexual orientation, women's tendency to underreport sexual behaviors, and the existence of female paraphilias in erotic literature. Ozy also critiques Spandrell's understanding of autogynephilia and transgender experiences, arguing that autogynephilia is simply ordinary female sexuality. The post ends with Ozy addressing Spandrell's misconceptions about their own gender identity and sexual preferences. Shorter summary