Scott Alexander explores the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, and how this relates to ideas of desert and justice, sometimes conflicting with utilitarian calculations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of people 'nominating themselves for the short end of a tradeoff' through their actions, using three examples: an antidepressant with potential for abuse, a sexual harasser in a community, and basic income recipients who choose not to work. He explores how this concept relates to ideas of desert and justice, and how it sometimes conflicts with utilitarian calculations. The post grapples with the tension between utilitarian outcomes and the intuition that people who make bad choices should face the consequences, even if those consequences might be disproportionate to their actions. Scott considers various ways to reconcile or understand this tension, including viewing it as a misfiring heuristic, a revealed preference issue, or a necessary part of maintaining rule-based systems. Shorter summary

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

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'be nice, at least until you can coordinate meanness' as a principle for ethical behavior and community management. He argues that while being nice is generally a good heuristic, there are cases where meanness might be necessary. However, he emphasizes that coordinated meanness (e.g., through legal systems or widely agreed-upon social norms) is preferable to uncoordinated individual acts of meanness. The post explores the benefits of coordination in terms of predictability, stability, and reduced frequency of meanness. Scott applies this principle to his blog moderation policy, allowing discussion of ideas but prohibiting direct attacks or shaming of individual commenters. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the problem of endless, unproductive arguments in online communities and proposes ways to mitigate them while maintaining healthy discourse. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problem of interminable arguments in online communities, particularly within rationalist circles. He argues that while it's important to challenge beliefs and seek out counterarguments, this can lead to repetitive, unproductive debates that people feel obligated to engage in. The post explores reasons why people get drawn into these arguments, such as feeling the need to correct misinformation, responding to insults, or defending against attempts to marginalize their views. Scott suggests several ways to mitigate this issue, including blocking trolls, being more tolerant of newbies, recognizing asymmetrical debate burdens, and emphasizing that there's no obligation to defend one's position on demand. He proposes moving discussions to private channels or longer-form content as potential solutions. Shorter summary