Scott Alexander critiques the claim that 'America has two X-wing parties' as meaningless or misleading, urging for more precise political comparisons. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the common political trope that 'America has two left-wing parties' or 'America has two right-wing parties'. He argues that this claim is meaningless when taken as an absolute statement, as there's no objective center in politics. When considered as a relative claim, it's either false (relative to US voters) or inconsistent (relative to other countries). He suggests that people making such claims are often comparing to specific reference points like US history or OECD countries, and should explicitly state their comparisons instead of making broad, ambiguous statements. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against harshly criticizing various groups often mocked by both left and right, emphasizing nuanced thinking and engagement with evidence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against dismissing or mocking several groups often criticized by both left and right-wing commentators. He defends celebrities speaking out against Trump, people comparing politics to Harry Potter, Hamilton fans, Vox, Matt Yglesias, pundits who failed to predict Trump's victory, and those concerned about Russian election interference. The post uses a mix of logical arguments, personal anecdotes, and humor to make the case that these groups don't deserve harsh criticism, while also acknowledging some of their flaws. Scott emphasizes the importance of nuanced thinking, avoiding sweeping conclusions from limited data, and engaging with evidence rather than dismissing concerns outright. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that accusations of Trump being an 'openly white supremacist' candidate are exaggerated and harmful, and calls for more measured criticism of Trump's actual flaws. Longer summary

In this post, Scott Alexander argues that accusations of racism and white supremacy against Donald Trump and his supporters are exaggerated and harmful. He contends that while Trump has said and done problematic things, claims that he is an 'openly white supremacist' candidate are not supported by evidence. Alexander reviews various arguments about Trump's alleged racism and rebuts them, citing statistics and providing context. He argues that treating Trump as uniquely racist compared to past presidents is inaccurate and counterproductive. The post ends with a call to stop 'crying wolf' about racism, as it causes unnecessary fear and may desensitize people to real instances of racism in the future. Alexander makes several predictions about what will happen under a Trump presidency to back up his argument. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes media tendencies to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements, arguing we should focus more on their stated positions and actions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media's tendency to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements or 'dog whistles'. He argues this often ignores the politicians' actual stated beliefs and policies in favor of overanalyzing gaffes or interpreting statements as secret codes. The post examines three cases: Ted Cruz being called anti-Semitic for saying 'New York values', Ken Livingstone being labeled anti-Semitic for comments about Hitler and Zionism, and Donald Trump being called openly sexist despite his pro-women hiring record. Scott suggests we should be more skeptical of media claims to have special insight into politicians' true beliefs and instead focus on their stated positions and past actions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how 'fnords' and similar psychological techniques may influence political discourse and polarization through unconscious associations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'fnords' from the book Illuminatus and how it relates to political discourse and psychological manipulation. He discusses Nydwracu's technique of stripping articles down to their emotionally-charged words, Jonathan Haidt's experiments on disgust and moral judgments, and the potential psychological mechanisms behind associating ideas with disliked figures. The post suggests that these techniques may contribute to political polarization by creating unconscious negative associations. Shorter summary

Scott argues that social psychology is often misused in political discourse, presenting counterintuitive claims to demonstrate how easily it can be manipulated to support various agendas. Longer summary

This post critiques the use of social psychology in political discourse, arguing that it's often misused to support preexisting beliefs. Scott presents six counterintuitive social psychology claims that oppose common narratives, such as media violence preventing crime and fighting stereotypes increasing prejudice. He argues these claims, while not definitively proven, are as plausible as their more commonly accepted opposites. The post highlights the dangers of using speculative social psychology to justify social engineering, emphasizing that poorly replicated short-term studies can prove almost anything. Scott concludes by advocating for caution and subtlety when applying social psychology findings to social policy. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes 'bravery debates' as toxic and unproductive, explaining psychological factors that lead to their persistence and recommending against engaging in them. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques 'bravery debates', where people claim to be bravely holding unpopular positions against persecution. He argues these debates are toxic and unproductive, often devolving into inflammatory rhetoric. Scott explains how the hostile media effect and selective attention to negative examples can make opposing groups feel equally persecuted. He cites studies showing that portraying oneself as an underdog can gain support and sympathy. Scott concludes that these debates are addictive but ultimately unhelpful, drowning out more substantive discussions. He recommends avoiding bravery debates unless one is genuinely risking something by speaking out. Shorter summary