Scott Alexander examines Greg Lukianoff's definition of cancel culture and explores its limitations through hypothetical scenarios, arguing for a more nuanced understanding to strengthen anti-cancel-culture coalitions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses Greg Lukianoff's definition of cancel culture and explores its limitations through a series of hypothetical scenarios. He argues that while Lukianoff's definition is a good start, it doesn't address many nuanced edge cases. The post presents various examples involving pedophilia, controversial research, and media reactions to offensive content. Scott emphasizes the need for a more robust definition to strengthen anti-cancel-culture coalitions and clarify what actions are acceptable or not. He concludes that while it's difficult to define cancel culture precisely, more work on these questions could help create stronger agreements among those opposing it. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against conservatives adopting cancel culture tactics, presenting practical reasons why this approach would be counterproductive and harmful. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the recent debate among conservatives about whether to adopt cancel culture tactics against their opponents. He argues against this approach, presenting several practical considerations. These include the ineffectiveness of persecution in teaching lessons, the historical context of cancel culture, the similarity between left and right attitudes, the prevalence of friendly fire in cancellations, the negative impact on competence and institutions, and the strategic downsides for conservatives. Scott suggests alternative approaches to addressing cancel culture, emphasizing the need for principled and incremental progress. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander distinguishes between moderation and censorship in social media, proposing opt-in settings for banned content as a solution to balance user preferences and free speech. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that moderation and censorship are distinct concepts often conflated in debates about social media content. He defines moderation as a business practice to improve user experience, while censorship involves third-party intervention against users' wishes. The post proposes a solution where platforms could implement opt-in settings for banned content, allowing users to choose their level of exposure. This approach would maintain the benefits of moderation while avoiding the pitfalls of censorship. Scott acknowledges some arguments for true censorship but emphasizes the importance of separating these concepts to foster more productive debates on the topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains ACX's comment policy, requiring comments to be at least two of true, necessary, and kind, and lists recent bans. Longer summary

This post outlines the comment policy for Astral Codex Ten (ACX), adapting a saying attributed to ancient Sufis and the Buddha. The policy requires comments to meet at least two of three criteria: true, necessary, and kind. Scott Alexander explains each combination and provides guidelines for acceptable comments. He also mentions societal taboos and his approach to free speech, reserving the right to ban users who consistently post very taboo content. The post concludes with a list of recent bans on the ACX blog. Shorter summary

Scott explores the concept of antifragility in relation to libertarianism, introducing 'diversity libertarianism' to analyze issues like corporate censorship and religious pressure on businesses. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expands on the concept of antifragility from Nassim Taleb's book, applying it to libertarianism and corporate censorship. He introduces the idea of 'diversity libertarianism,' which favors high variance in options for areas where people can freely choose, but low variance for systems prone to catastrophic failures. This framework is used to analyze issues like corporate censorship and religious pressure on businesses, arguing that libertarians can consistently support diverse corporate policies while opposing coordinated censorship. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores how minority views can be silenced through social censorship, using a 'first offender model' to explain the maintenance of taboos despite significant private support. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of social censorship, using a study on public support for eugenics as a starting point. He introduces a 'first offender model' to explain how a minority view can be effectively silenced despite having significant support. The post draws parallels between this model and a hypothetical policing strategy, where focusing on deterring the first offender of a particular crime can prevent others from following suit. Scott applies this concept to explain how taboos and social norms are maintained, even when a significant portion of the population might privately disagree. He reflects on how this insight changes his view on censorship, acknowledging that taboos might represent a 'tenuous coordination advantage' rather than overwhelming opposition. The post concludes by considering the implications of this model for debates about censorship and free speech. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains why the controversial Culture War thread was removed from r/slatestarcodex due to harassment, and discusses the challenges of hosting spaces for difficult conversations online. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explains why the Culture War thread on the r/slatestarcodex subreddit was shut down and moved to a new subreddit. He describes how the thread became a unique space for civil discussion of controversial topics, but also attracted harassment and threats against Scott personally. This led to a nervous breakdown and the decision to separate the thread from his blog. Scott uses this story to illustrate broader issues around hosting spaces for difficult conversations online, and the climate of fear and censorship that can result from harassment campaigns. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes viewing culture as a fourth branch of government to highlight its importance in societal function and governance. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a thought experiment where culture is considered the fourth branch of government alongside executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This 'refactoring' of how we view culture helps to understand its importance in societal function and governance. He illustrates this concept through examples such as nation-building efforts in Iraq, the governance of hunter-gatherer societies, and debates about censorship and immigration. The post suggests that this perspective could clarify discussions about libertarianism, free speech, and the role of cultural norms in society. While acknowledging the idea is hypothetical, Scott argues it serves as a useful counter to overlooking the significance of culture in governance and social structures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that the Intellectual Dark Web can be both popular and silenced, explaining various mechanisms of social censorship and how they apply to controversial thinkers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that the 'Intellectual Dark Web' (IDW) can be both popular and silenced, contrary to criticisms. He points out that marginalized groups often have famous spokespeople, taboo ideas tend to generate celebrity, and fame doesn't protect ordinary supporters from social repercussions. He explains how the internet has enabled controversial voices to be heard, and suggests that the IDW's complaints about threats and harassment should be taken seriously. Scott also argues that the IDW likely still self-censors to some degree, and that silencing is more about preventing common knowledge than suppressing support or leaders. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics and governance. Mistake theorists view political issues as problems to be solved through debate and expertise, while conflict theorists see politics as a struggle between opposing groups. The post explores how these perspectives differ in their approach to free speech, racism, democracy, and revolution. Scott reflects on his own tendency towards mistake theory and considers the merits of conflict theory, especially in light of current political realities. He concludes that while he still leans towards mistake theory, he recognizes the need to engage more seriously with conflict theory perspectives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the difficulties in creating consistent free speech norms beyond legal protections, proposing guidelines and emphasizing the role of community consensus. Longer summary

This post explores the complexities of establishing coherent principles around free speech norms beyond governmental protections. Scott Alexander discusses the challenges of balancing opinion expression, propensity signaling, and speech acts, using various examples to illustrate the nuances. He proposes some potential guidelines, such as allowing controversial opinions if they don't lead to dangerous actions, and not enforcing idiosyncratic rules through punishment. The post concludes by emphasizing the importance of community consensus in establishing norms and the need for clear rules in different types of communities. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the practice of signal-boosting offensive tweets to harm someone's reputation, arguing it undermines free speech and creates dangerous precedents. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a recent Twitter incident where a libertarian columnist signal-boosted an offensive tweet to potentially harm the tweeter's job prospects. He argues that this approach, while not technically doxxing, undermines free speech norms and creates a dangerous precedent. Scott draws parallels to other forms of social oppression and emphasizes that free speech isn't just about laws, but also about social norms that allow dissenting opinions. He warns of the risks of living in a 'Panopticon' where anyone's past statements can be used against them, potentially ruining lives. Scott concludes by advocating for the promotion of good social norms that protect free speech, even for those we disagree with. Shorter summary

Scott clarifies that he supports free speech for all, but criticizes deliberately seeking controversy when choosing speakers to defend free speech principles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander clarifies his previous post about 'Sacred Principles As Exhaustible Resources', addressing misunderstandings. He emphasizes that he's not against defending controversial speakers like Charles Murray or Jordan Peterson, but criticizes the process of deliberately seeking out controversial figures to test free speech principles. Scott argues that while free speech should protect everyone, the political process of defending it should strategically choose sympathetic test cases to build public support, similar to how the NAACP chose Rosa Parks. He warns against deliberately seeking out the most controversial figures as test cases, as this can harm the cause of free speech in the long run. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that overusing free speech to defend controversial figures may lead to a backlash against the principle itself, potentially depleting it as a societal resource. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the potential negative consequences of invoking free speech to defend controversial speakers or ideas. He argues that while free speech should protect unpopular views, repeatedly using it to defend offensive content may lead to a backlash against the principle itself. The post compares respect for free speech to a commons that can be depleted if overused, especially in the context of growing partisanship. Scott warns that associating free speech primarily with conservative causes could turn it into a partisan issue, alienating liberals. He suggests that to preserve free speech, it should be invoked to defend liberal causes as well, preventing it from becoming solely associated with controversial right-wing figures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes the principle 'be nice, at least until you can coordinate meanness' and applies it to ethical dilemmas and blog moderation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'be nice, at least until you can coordinate meanness' as a principle for ethical behavior and community management. He argues that while being nice is generally a good heuristic, there are cases where meanness might be necessary. However, he emphasizes that coordinated meanness (e.g., through legal systems or widely agreed-upon social norms) is preferable to uncoordinated individual acts of meanness. The post explores the benefits of coordination in terms of predictability, stability, and reduced frequency of meanness. Scott applies this principle to his blog moderation policy, allowing discussion of ideas but prohibiting direct attacks or shaming of individual commenters. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the parallels between social justice and anti-social justice groups, arguing that shared experiences of perceived persecution could lead to better understanding and less conflict. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the similarities between social justice and anti-social justice narratives, showing how both groups often feel persecuted and develop similar defensive mechanisms. He argues that this shared experience of perceived threat, even when statistically unlikely, leads to hypervigilance and extreme reactions from both sides. Scott suggests that as both groups now face similar challenges, there may be an opportunity for mutual understanding and the development of protocols to prevent escalation. He advises against dismissing the fears of either side and proposes that recognizing the shared experience of fear could lead to more productive dialogue. Shorter summary

Scott shares emotionally charged thoughts on various topics, including education, relationships, free speech, rape statistics, medical residency, and a humorous Hitler anecdote. Longer summary

This post is a collection of emotionally charged links and thoughts on various topics. Scott discusses his excitement about Zipfian Academy, a data science bootcamp; his support for International Tell Your Crush Day; his concern about a person being fired for disagreeing with firing people over ideas; his confusion over statistics about male rape; his guilt about medical resident duty hours; and his amusement at a tweet about Hitler initially joining the Nazis as a government agent. The post is structured as a series of short sections, each focusing on a different emotion and topic. 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