Scott defends liberalism against claims it has failed by explaining that happiness scales logarithmically with income, so our 225x wealth increase since medieval times correctly predicts the 3-point happiness gain we've actually seen, and recent declines are due to COVID rather than systemic failure. Longer summary

Scott responds to Cassie Pritchard's argument that liberalism has failed because people aren't happier despite massive increases in wealth. He explains that happiness scales logarithmically with income, not linearly - meaning a 225x increase in GDP since medieval times should only produce about 3 points more happiness on a 1-10 scale, which it has (from ~3/10 to 6-7/10). He shows that recent happiness declines are primarily due to COVID and its aftermath, not liberalism itself, and that while other systems might add 0.5-1 points of happiness, economic growth has delivered 3 points and will continue delivering more over centuries. The post includes analysis of happiness data, comparisons across countries and time periods, and addresses why we don't feel as happy as we should be. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes how the term 'fascist' combines factual meaning with implied violence-justifying connotations, making its casual use potentially dangerous in current political discourse. Longer summary

Scott examines the logical inconsistency between three commonly held beliefs: that many Americans are fascists, that fascists are legitimate targets for violence, and that political violence in America is currently unacceptable. Using the recent Twitter dispute between Gavin Newsom and Stephen Miller as a starting point, he explores how the term 'fascist' has both denotative meaning (far-right nationalist) and violent connotations. The post discusses the challenges of determining when political violence becomes justified, and concludes that while the term 'fascist' shouldn't be banned, it's better to avoid using it when possible to prevent contributing to dangerous rhetoric. Shorter summary