Scott Alexander challenges Richard Hanania's explanation for liberal dominance in institutions, attributing it instead to shifting coalition systems described by Thomas Piketty. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Richard Hanania's article asking why everything is liberal despite roughly equal numbers of conservative and liberal voters. Alexander argues that the reason is not, as Hanania suggests, that liberals care more about politics, but rather due to shifting coalition systems as described by Thomas Piketty. Piketty's research shows a change from a 1950s system of elite vs. common parties to a current system where the left captures highly educated voters while the right captures less educated and some wealthy voters. This shift explains why institutions dominated by highly educated people lean liberal. Alexander discusses the implications of this shift, including potential instability in the system and the risk of institutional monocultures. He suggests potential solutions like decreasing the importance of college degrees in society and solving racism to shake up political coalitions. 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 discusses how political groups can shift from outgroups to 'fargroups', leading to less hostility and more exoticization, and predicts this pattern may increase political in-fighting while reducing inter-party conflict. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'fargroups' as opposed to outgroups, and how this distinction affects political discourse. He argues that as groups become less threatening, they transition from outgroups to fargroups, leading to exoticization rather than hostility. The post traces this pattern in the decline of atheism vs. religion debates and the rise of intra-party conflicts in American politics. Scott predicts that as political bubbles increase, opposing parties may become fargroups, while internal party factions become the new outgroups. He also notes a trend of sympathetic portrayals of Trump and Brexit supporters, suggesting they're transitioning to fargroup status for some progressives. Shorter summary