Scott argues that taking the Giving What We Can Pledge to donate a fixed percentage of income is the single most impactful decision most people can make, eliminating donation stress while maximizing charitable impact. Longer summary

Scott advocates for taking the Giving What We Can Pledge, arguing that committing to donate a fixed percentage of income (typically 10%) to effective charities is one of the most impactful decisions someone can make. He describes how he used to feel stressed and irrational about charitable giving before discovering the pledge, and explains that having a predetermined commitment eliminates the guilt and decision fatigue of responding to individual fundraising appeals. The post emphasizes that for most people, financial donations are their most powerful tool for changing the world, and that making a binding pledge - rather than relying on willpower for each donation - is the key to actually following through on altruistic values. Shorter summary

Scott explores why conservative religious movements thrive while liberal ones decline, suggesting that strict rules and commitments strengthen communities, and considers this in the context of atheist religion-substitutes. Longer summary

This post discusses the counterintuitive success of conservative religious movements compared to liberal ones, exploring the idea that demanding commitments and strict rules can actually strengthen religious communities. Scott examines this concept in the context of atheist religion-substitutes, noting their tendency to avoid placing rules on members. He contrasts this with the approach of Giving What We Can, which requires a specific commitment from members. The post concludes by considering the potential of 'nomic' subcultures based on rule-following as a possible direction for secular community-building. Shorter summary