Scott argues that Viktor Orban's election loss doesn't vindicate him or disprove concerns about democratic backsliding, since autocrats can do many undemocratic things and still lose elections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to commentary suggesting that Viktor Orban's recent election loss proves critics who called him authoritarian were overreacting. He argues that democracy versus dictatorship exists on a spectrum, and that Orban engaged in numerous undemocratic practices (media control, gerrymandering, phone tapping, etc.) even though he ultimately lost. Scott provides historical examples of dictators and autocrats who also lost elections (Pinochet, Milosevic, Putin, Chavez), showing that losing an election doesn't retroactively prove a leader wasn't undermining democracy. He concludes by connecting this to Trump, acknowledging he initially dismissed concerns about Trump threatening democracy but changed his mind after the 2020 election and January 6, and argues we shouldn't discard the "democratic backsliding" framework just because Orban lost. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the claim that 'America has two X-wing parties' as meaningless or misleading, urging for more precise political comparisons. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the common political trope that 'America has two left-wing parties' or 'America has two right-wing parties'. He argues that this claim is meaningless when taken as an absolute statement, as there's no objective center in politics. When considered as a relative claim, it's either false (relative to US voters) or inconsistent (relative to other countries). He suggests that people making such claims are often comparing to specific reference points like US history or OECD countries, and should explicitly state their comparisons instead of making broad, ambiguous statements. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander addresses feedback on his conflict vs. mistake theory post, acknowledging criticisms while defending the core concept's usefulness as a starting point for understanding different approaches to societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about conflict vs. mistake theory. He acknowledges valid criticisms while defending the core concept as useful, even if imperfect. Key points include: 1) The dichotomy is meant as a starting point for understanding, not a perfect description. 2) There's confusion between the theories and specific political ideologies that needs clarification. 3) The theories may be better understood as different perspectives or emphases rather than mutually exclusive worldviews. 4) Some commenters offer interesting alternative interpretations or applications of the concepts. 5) Scott reflects on the complexities around ideas of 'shilling' and bias in relation to the theories. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares results from a 2014 survey of Slate Star Codex readers, detailing demographics, education, income, and views of his blog audience. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents the results of a 2014 survey of Slate Star Codex readers who were not Less Wrong users. The survey covered demographics, education, income, political views, and other characteristics of the blog's audience. Key findings include a predominantly male, white, American readership with high education levels and above-average incomes. The post provides insights into readers' professions, religious views, ethical stances, and political leanings. Scott notes similarities with Less Wrong survey results and mentions a more recent gender-related survey showing an increase in female respondents. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', praising its approach to arguing against racism and its display of epistemic virtue. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Anti-Racialist Q&A', an essay by blogger The Prussian on SkepticInk. He finds it astounding for several reasons: it's good enough to warrant specific criticisms, the author's political leanings are unclear, it aims to actually convince people, and it might be one of the first pieces Scott has read that argues against racism rather than just condemning it. Scott praises the essay's approach as showing epistemic virtue, though he doesn't agree with everything in it. He encourages readers to give The Prussian more traffic for this ambitious work. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander creates a political quiz to distinguish between object-level and meta-level thinking, based on consistent application of principles across different scenarios. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a political spectrum quiz designed to differentiate between 'Object-Level Thinkers' and 'Meta-Level Thinkers'. The quiz consists of pairs of questions on controversial political issues, where each pair tests the same principle but in different contexts. Participants are scored based on how consistently they apply principles across different scenarios. The post includes 12 questions (6 pairs), scoring instructions, and commentary on the quiz's inspiration and design. Scott also invites readers to suggest improvements or additional questions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes a 'Thrive/Survive Theory' explaining political ideologies as optimizations for different environments, with rightism for survival and leftism for thriving in safety. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a 'Thrive/Survive Theory' to explain the political spectrum. He suggests that rightism is optimized for surviving unsafe environments, while leftism is optimized for thriving in safe environments. The post explores how this theory explains various aspects of political ideologies, including their stability across cultures, correlation with other preferences, and the gradual leftward drift of society over time. Scott uses thought experiments involving zombie apocalypses and utopian futures to illustrate how different environments might shape political views. He also discusses how this theory relates to developmental psychology and historical trends. Shorter summary