Scott Alexander critiques the use of bias arguments in debates, explaining why they're often counterproductive and suggesting more constructive ways to address bias. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problems with using bias arguments in debates. He argues that these arguments are often unproductive because everyone is biased, people are hypersensitive to biases against their side, it's hard to define bias, and bias arguments don't lead anywhere productive. He suggests that bias arguments can be useful when they provide new information, can be quantified, offer unbiased alternatives, or in private conversations between trusted friends. Scott emphasizes that first-person bias arguments (recognizing one's own biases) are the most valuable, as they allow for honest self-reflection and improvement. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes media tendencies to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements, arguing we should focus more on their stated positions and actions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media's tendency to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements or 'dog whistles'. He argues this often ignores the politicians' actual stated beliefs and policies in favor of overanalyzing gaffes or interpreting statements as secret codes. The post examines three cases: Ted Cruz being called anti-Semitic for saying 'New York values', Ken Livingstone being labeled anti-Semitic for comments about Hitler and Zionism, and Donald Trump being called openly sexist despite his pro-women hiring record. Scott suggests we should be more skeptical of media claims to have special insight into politicians' true beliefs and instead focus on their stated positions and past actions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how issues become politicized along tribal lines, preventing rational discussion and leading to counterproductive behaviors. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses how various issues become politicized and tied to tribal narratives, using examples like the Ebola quarantine debate, the Rotherham scandal, and climate change. He argues that when issues become referendums on tribal identity, it prevents rational discussion and leads to counterproductive behaviors. He suggests that framing issues in ways that respect out-group narratives could help, but notes this rarely happens due to media incentives. 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