Scott examines the tension between correcting false claims (like that crime is actually up but hidden) and being accused of deflecting from related legitimate concerns (like disorder), using his recent crime posts as an example. Longer summary

Scott discusses two opposing rhetorical fallacies: the 'malicious streetlight effect' (debunking a slightly different claim than what was actually made) and 'directional correctness' (making claims slightly stronger than evidence supports). He uses his recent crime statistics posts as an example, where he was accused of the streetlight fallacy—arguing crime is down when people's real concerns were about disorder and quality-of-life issues. Scott defends his posts by noting he was responding to real, influential arguments that crime rates are actually up but hidden by reporting bias or medical advances (citing neoreactionary blogs that claimed murder would be 40x higher without modern medicine). He acknowledges the tension: it's important to correct false claims, but doing so can look like deflection from legitimate related concerns. His solution is to explicitly acknowledge related topics upfront and promise to address them separately. Shorter summary

Scott responds to comments on his Scott Adams obituary, defending his mixed tone while making some updates based on feedback about Adams' podcast reach and influence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his Scott Adams obituary, addressing criticisms about the post's timing and tone, defending his characterization of Adams' interest in manipulation, discussing the reach of Adams' podcast, and (reluctantly) clarifying his position on Adams' controversial race-related comments. The post includes updates acknowledging that Adams' podcast was more influential than initially stated and that his manipulation techniques coexisted with genuine helpfulness to many people. Shorter summary

Scott asks readers to help select finalists for the Non-Book Review Contest by rating entries through a provided form, with voting open until June 20. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the voting phase for the Non-Book Review Contest 2025, asking readers to help narrow down 141 entries to about a dozen finalists. He provides links to categorized lists of entries (Other A-I, J-S, T-Z, Games, Music, TV/Movies) and a rating form. He specifically asks readers not to read entries in order but either randomly or based on interest, to ensure more even distribution of votes. The post includes the full list of entries and mentions a June 20 deadline for voting. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a collection of negative and often insulting testimonials about himself and his blog Slate Star Codex, showcasing criticism of his writing, personality, and perceived ideologies. Longer summary

This post is a collection of negative testimonials about Scott Alexander and his blog Slate Star Codex. The testimonials range from critical comments to outright insults, covering various aspects of Scott's writing, personality, and perceived ideological stances. The post is presented in a humorous and self-deprecating manner, with Scott showcasing these negative comments about himself and his work. The testimonials touch on topics such as politics, rationality, autism, and Scott's writing style, often in harsh or offensive language. 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 a collection of mostly critical and often insulting testimonials about his blog Slate Star Codex, revealing the diverse and polarized reactions to his work. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares a collection of testimonials and feedback he has received about his blog Slate Star Codex over three years. The post presents a wide range of opinions, many of which are highly critical, insulting, or dismissive. The feedback touches on various aspects of Scott's writing, personality, and the blog's community. Some comments praise his intelligence while criticizing his verbosity or political stance. Others mock his writing style, accuse him of censorship, or make personal attacks. The testimonials reveal the diverse and often polarized reactions to Scott's work, ranging from admiration to outright hostility. Shorter summary