Scott Alexander examines how Curtis Yarvin's current support for Trump-style populism directly contradicts his earlier detailed writings warning against exactly this type of right-wing populist movement. Longer summary

Scott analyzes how Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) has contradicted his own earlier writings by supporting Trump-style right-wing populism. Scott shows how Yarvin's original work specifically warned against populist strongmen and laid out specific requirements for legitimate autocracy, including non-democratic selection, oversight by a board of directors, and cryptographic safeguards. The post details how Yarvin previously called right-wing populism a dangerous failure mode of his philosophy that would lead to disaster, making his current support of Trump particularly hypocritical. Scott quotes extensively from Yarvin's old blog to demonstrate the magnitude of his reversal. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against conservatives adopting cancel culture tactics, presenting practical reasons why this approach would be counterproductive and harmful. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the recent debate among conservatives about whether to adopt cancel culture tactics against their opponents. He argues against this approach, presenting several practical considerations. These include the ineffectiveness of persecution in teaching lessons, the historical context of cancel culture, the similarity between left and right attitudes, the prevalence of friendly fire in cancellations, the negative impact on competence and institutions, and the strategic downsides for conservatives. Scott suggests alternative approaches to addressing cancel culture, emphasizing the need for principled and incremental progress. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses various perspectives on self-determination, addressing issues like status quo bias, group rights, and the complexities of applying consistent principles to secession cases. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses various comments on his previous post about self-determination. He addresses issues such as the preference for status quo, the nature of group rights, the Confederate secession, international norms, historical investment, and the complexities of applying consistent principles to self-determination cases. Scott generally favors a nuanced approach that respects existing borders by default but allows for secession in cases of oppression or when it can be done peacefully, while acknowledging the difficulties in applying universal rules to such complex situations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's anti-technocracy essay, arguing for a more nuanced view of formal mechanisms in decision-making and defending rationalist approaches. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's essay 'Why I Am Not A Technocrat', arguing that Weyl's definition of technocracy is incoherent and his examples don't fit his own definition. Scott breaks down the concept of technocracy into several axes, including top-down vs. bottom-up, mechanism vs. judgment, and expert vs. popular opinion. He argues that formal mechanisms can be valuable in preventing bias and corruption, using examples like district creation and college admissions. Scott also defends the rationalist and effective altruism communities against Weyl's criticisms, highlighting their successes in areas like pandemic preparedness. He concludes that while critiques of technocracy are important, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the issue and to recognize that sometimes technocratic approaches can be beneficial. Shorter summary