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

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. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of 'spirit of the First Amendment' and its implications for free speech. Scott Alexander disagrees with Popehat's criticism of this concept, arguing that there is a legitimate meaning to it. He explains that the spirit of the First Amendment is about protecting the marketplace of ideas, where arguments succeed based on evidence rather than the power of their proponents. Scott distinguishes between good responses to arguments (addressing ideas) and bad responses (silencing them), including methods like getting people fired, doxxing, and online harassment. He argues that these silencing tactics distribute power based on popularity and wealth rather than the validity of ideas. The post concludes by stating that bad arguments should be met with counterarguments, not with tactics that silence or harm the speaker. Shorter summary