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.

Scott Alexander examines Greg Lukianoff's definition of cancel culture and explores its limitations through hypothetical scenarios, arguing for a more nuanced understanding to strengthen anti-cancel-culture coalitions.

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

Scott Alexander distinguishes between moderation and censorship in social media, proposing opt-in settings for banned content as a solution to balance user preferences and free speech.

Scott Alexander explains ACX's comment policy, requiring comments to be at least two of true, necessary, and kind, and lists recent bans.

Scott explores the concept of antifragility in relation to libertarianism, introducing 'diversity libertarianism' to analyze issues like corporate censorship and religious pressure on businesses.

Scott Alexander explores how minority views can be silenced through social censorship, using a 'first offender model' to explain the maintenance of taboos despite significant private support.

Scott Alexander explains why the controversial Culture War thread was removed from r/slatestarcodex due to harassment, and discusses the challenges of hosting spaces for difficult conversations online.

Scott Alexander presents a diverse collection of interesting news items, scientific findings, and cultural observations, covering topics from archaeology to economics to social issues.

Scott Alexander proposes viewing culture as a fourth branch of government to highlight its importance in societal function and governance.

Scott Alexander argues that the Intellectual Dark Web can be both popular and silenced, explaining various mechanisms of social censorship and how they apply to controversial thinkers.

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory.

Scott Alexander examines the difficulties in creating consistent free speech norms beyond legal protections, proposing guidelines and emphasizing the role of community consensus.

Scott Alexander critiques the practice of signal-boosting offensive tweets to harm someone's reputation, arguing it undermines free speech and creates dangerous precedents.

A collection of interesting links spanning architecture, science, politics and economics, with commentary on studies about lithium, lead exposure, minimum wage, and free speech.

Scott clarifies that he supports free speech for all, but criticizes deliberately seeking controversy when choosing speakers to defend free speech principles.

Scott Alexander argues that overusing free speech to defend controversial figures may lead to a backlash against the principle itself, potentially depleting it as a societal resource.

Scott Alexander proposes the principle 'be nice, at least until you can coordinate meanness' and applies it to ethical dilemmas and blog moderation.

Scott Alexander examines the parallels between social justice and anti-social justice groups, arguing that shared experiences of perceived persecution could lead to better understanding and less conflict.

Scott shares emotionally charged thoughts on various topics, including education, relationships, free speech, rape statistics, medical residency, and a humorous Hitler anecdote.

Scott Alexander argues for a legitimate 'spirit of the First Amendment' that protects the marketplace of ideas, criticizing tactics that silence rather than address arguments.

Scott analyzes four mechanisms that make slippery slopes real, using examples like Murder-Gandhi and playing Civilization, and proposes 'Schelling fences' as the solution - clear stopping points that people can credibly commit to defending.

Scott uses a thought experiment about aliens making British people sensitive to salmon photos to argue that causing offense should be viewed through a consequentialist harm-minimization framework rather than a deontological blame-assignment framework.