Scott examines how American political discourse absorbs European narratives that don't fit the US context, particularly around immigration and crime statistics. Longer summary

Scott argues that American political discourse sometimes absorbs European issues that don't apply to the US context. He gives two main examples: the narrative about generational wealth transfer through pensions (which happens in Europe but not America), and conservative talking points about immigrants being criminals and welfare recipients (largely true in parts of Europe, largely false in America). He provides detailed statistics showing that most US immigrant groups, including asylum seekers, have lower crime rates than native-born Americans, contrasting this with higher rates in countries like Germany. Scott suggests both liberals and conservatives avoid acknowledging this difference because it's politically inconvenient, but argues liberals should directly challenge conservatives to focus on American rather than European data. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that a New York Times article misrepresented economists' views on school vouchers, offering evidence and proposing a bet to prove the article was misleading. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a New York Times article that claimed economists generally don't support school vouchers. He argues the article misrepresented survey data and gave a misleading impression. Scott points out that the data could be interpreted to support the opposite conclusion, that the article's phrasing likely led readers to an incorrect understanding of economists' views, and that a follow-up survey showed much stronger economist support for vouchers. He offers to bet that most readers would get a false impression from the article, initially agreeing to a bet with Noah Smith, though this later fell through. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews and critiques a polite but underwhelming video debate between Noah Smith and Michael Anissimov on neoreactionary ideas. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews a video debate between Noah Smith, an economics professor, and Michael Anissimov, a spokesperson for neoreaction. The debate covered topics such as social isolation, happiness trends, equality, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, organic state theory, aristocracy, and gender roles. Scott found the debate polite but somewhat underwhelming, with both participants making more moderate claims than expected. He provides his own analysis and critiques of the arguments presented, noting areas where he felt important points were missed or inadequately addressed. Shorter summary