Scott argues against the concept of 'stochastic terrorism' by showing it's applied inconsistently across the political spectrum, examining and rejecting various proposed distinctions about what criticism should be allowed, and advocating instead for a liberal solution where all criticism is permitted but violence is always the perpetrator's sole responsibility. Longer summary

Scott critiques the concept of 'stochastic terrorism' - the idea that harsh criticism of a group can make you responsible for subsequent violence against that group. He provides numerous examples across the political spectrum (from Trump to Muslims to health insurance CEOs) to show the concept is applied inconsistently and opportunistically. He examines and rejects various proposed distinctions (harsh vs mild criticism, policies vs individuals, powerful vs weak targets) as either arbitrary or contradictory. Scott argues for a liberal solution: any criticism should be allowed, violence is never legitimate, and perpetrators bear 100% responsibility for their actions. He acknowledges some edge cases around incitement and hate speech laws, but maintains that normal legal frameworks handle these better than the 'stochastic terrorism' concept. Shorter summary

Scott argues against the concept of "telescopic altruism" - the claim that liberals care more about distant strangers than nearby people - showing that people who care about faraway causes also care about nearby ones, and that compassion is generally correlated across all distances rather than inversely related. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of "telescopic altruism," which claims that some people (usually liberals) ignore those close to them to care about distant strangers. He argues this accusation collapses under scrutiny: people who care about 50,000 deaths in Gaza would also care about 50,000 deaths among their neighbors. He debunks a commonly cited study whose heatmap visualization is misinterpreted to suggest liberals care more about rocks than family, when it actually just shows the outer limit of their moral concern. Scott proposes instead a "correlated altruism" hypothesis, citing Dave Barry's principle that someone nice to waiters is genuinely nice. He provides evidence that liberals who support foreign aid also support domestic programs like school lunches and COVID measures, and shows statistics suggesting liberals aren't worse at maintaining family relationships. The post concludes by acknowledging that some people do neglect their communities, but argues this happens because they care too much and are incompetent, not because they don't care at all. Shorter summary

Scott explores three approaches to 'writing for AI' - teaching knowledge, influencing beliefs, and enabling simulation - finding the first limited, the second theoretically confused, and the third creepy and ethically troubling. Longer summary

Scott examines the concept of 'writing for AI' - creating content that will influence future AI systems - through three lenses: helping AIs learn knowledge, presenting arguments to shape AI beliefs, and helping AIs model writers in enough detail to recreate them. He finds the first two either limited or theoretically muddled, and the third deeply unsettling. The post explores why influencing AI beliefs faces both practical obstacles (alignment training will override corpus data) and theoretical ones (finding the right sweet spot of influence). Scott is particularly disturbed by the idea of AIs simulating him, comparing it to being 'an ape in some transhuman zoo,' and struggles with questions about whether writers should try to impose their values on future AI systems. Shorter summary

Scott discusses comments on his previous post about liberalism and communities, exploring various perspectives on how wealth and societal structures affect community formation and maintenance. Longer summary

This post is a follow-up analyzing comments on Scott's previous article about liberalism and communities. He examines three main areas: theoretical discussions about community formation, specific examples of existing communities, and miscellaneous observations. The comments challenge and expand on his original thesis about wealth enabling community formation, with some arguing he underestimates existing communities while others suggest wealth actually hinders true community building. Scott identifies four different strategies for community formation and responds to various criticisms about legal barriers, sustainability, and the role of modern entertainment in community dissolution. Shorter summary

Scott examines Fukuyama's defense of liberalism as enabling tight-knit communities, and argues that economic constraints are what prevent more people from forming such communities today. Longer summary

Francis Fukuyama argues that liberalism isn't opposed to community but rather serves as a platform where different communities can thrive. Scott analyzes this claim by examining existing tight-knit communities in America, from the Amish to rationalists, noting they are exceptions rather than the rule. He suggests that economic constraints are the main barrier preventing more people from forming such communities, and argues that increased material abundance could enable more community-building. The post ends by connecting this to post-singularity scenarios, suggesting that economic freedom could allow people to form meaningful communities more easily. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander rejects the 'cultural Christianity' argument, stating that both Christian and secular liberal societies eventually succumb to modernism, making Christianity no more stable than secular alternatives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the 'cultural Christianity' argument, which suggests atheists should support Christian society for its cultural benefits. He acknowledges being part of the target audience, appreciating certain aspects of past Christian-influenced cultures. However, he rejects the argument on two grounds: his personal aversion to asserting falsehoods, and the observation that Christianity, like other cultural systems, has also succumbed to modernism and 'wokeness'. He argues that if both Christian and non-Christian liberal societies eventually collapse into undesirable cultural states, there's no advantage in advocating for Christianity over secular liberalism. The post concludes that addressing modern cultural challenges requires inventing a new cultural package rather than reverting to Christianity. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines Nietzsche's concepts of 'master morality' and 'slave morality', analyzing their modern manifestations and exploring potential compromises between these opposing moral frameworks. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concepts of 'master morality' and 'slave morality' introduced by Nietzsche, analyzing their manifestations in modern society and various ideologies. He discusses how these moral frameworks are reflected in figures like Ayn Rand, Andrew Tate, and Matt Yglesias, as well as in movements like effective altruism. The post examines the tensions between these moral systems and attempts to find a balance or transcendence of the dichotomy, ultimately suggesting that a cyclical, civilization-building approach might offer a meaningful compromise. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of 'racism' as an oversimplified explanation for complex issues, arguing for a more nuanced approach to understanding and addressing societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the concept of 'racism' as a catch-all term that conflates different motives and beliefs, leading to ineffective discourse and polarization. He argues that treating racism as a simple explanation for complex issues prevents understanding root causes and finding effective solutions. The post uses an analogy of 'murderism' to illustrate how this approach is flawed, and suggests that breaking down racist actions into non-racist motives can lead to better outcomes. Scott emphasizes the importance of maintaining liberal values and open dialogue to prevent societal breakdown. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes 'Archipelago', a society of voluntary communities, as a potential solution to issues in modern politics and social organization. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Archipelago', a hypothetical society where people can form voluntary communities based on shared values and principles. He argues that this model could potentially solve many problems of modern liberalism and conservatism, while preserving individual freedoms and addressing issues of oppression. The post discusses the challenges of implementing such a system in the real world, but suggests that increasing societal fracture into subcultures and online communities might be a step in that direction. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against using dishonest and harmful tactics in pursuit of social or political goals, defending the power of truthfulness, kindness, and liberalism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against the idea that using lies, insults, and harassment is justified in pursuing social or political goals. He contends that civilization and progress are built on agreements to be truthful and kind, even to opponents. The post explores how beneficial equilibria can arise without central enforcement, through reciprocal communitarianism and 'divine grace'. Scott defends his focus on criticizing those who claim to be rational but use dishonest tactics, seeing them as a threat to the 'walled garden' of rational discourse. He argues that liberalism and non-violence have been historically successful strategies, contrary to the view that they are weak. The post ends by comparing liberalism to a powerful 'Elder God' that should not be underestimated. Shorter summary