Scott Alexander argues that claims about pro-lifers secretly wanting to oppress women are uncharitable and likely false, and that we should engage with actual philosophical disagreements on abortion. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article arguing that pro-lifers don't actually care about fetuses but only want to coerce women. He argues this claim is uncharitable and likely false for several reasons: 1) It misunderstands the non-consequentialist ethics of many pro-lifers, 2) There's no evidence of widespread secret motivations, 3) It's unclear what it would even mean to 'not really believe' something, 4) It commits the genetic fallacy. Scott argues we should engage with the actual philosophical disagreements rather than impugning motives, and that the principle of charity is important when discussing contentious issues like abortion. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes 'bravery debates' as toxic and unproductive, explaining psychological factors that lead to their persistence and recommending against engaging in them. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques 'bravery debates', where people claim to be bravely holding unpopular positions against persecution. He argues these debates are toxic and unproductive, often devolving into inflammatory rhetoric. Scott explains how the hostile media effect and selective attention to negative examples can make opposing groups feel equally persecuted. He cites studies showing that portraying oneself as an underdog can gain support and sympathy. Scott concludes that these debates are addictive but ultimately unhelpful, drowning out more substantive discussions. He recommends avoiding bravery debates unless one is genuinely risking something by speaking out. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander humorously profiles potential papal candidates from an atheist's perspective, focusing on their quirky aspects rather than theological positions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander humorously analyzes potential papal candidates from an atheist's perspective, focusing on their hilarity rather than their theological positions. He provides brief profiles of several cardinals, highlighting quirky facts, quotes, and potential scandals. The post includes funny images replacing the cardinals' faces with celebrities who have similar names. Scott expresses his desire for a progressive pope while acknowledging it's unlikely, and settles for hoping the new pope will at least be entertaining. He also touches on the difficulty of understanding the distinctions between liberal, moderate, and conservative cardinals from an outsider's perspective. Shorter summary