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 Alexander responds to reader comments on his culture wars article, addressing various topics including 4chan history, transgender issues, feminism, dating apps, and internet censorship. Longer summary

This post highlights various comments on Scott's previous article about online culture wars. It covers topics such as the history of 4chan, the role of transgender issues in culture wars, the decline of feminism discourse, the impact of dating apps on social interactions, internet censorship, and the evolution of online movements. Scott responds to these comments, often agreeing with some points while remaining skeptical of others. He also reflects on how his own perspective might be limited by his age and experiences. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander advocates for 'Socratic grilling' as a valuable learning tool, urging people not to mistake genuine confusion and questioning for arrogance or challenges to authority. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the importance of allowing and encouraging 'Socratic grilling' - a process where students ask challenging questions to resolve their confusion about a topic. He argues that this process, which may appear confrontational, is crucial for developing critical thinking skills and should not be discouraged. The post uses an example of a student questioning germ theory to illustrate how this process works and why it's valuable. Scott emphasizes that misinterpreting these questions as arrogance or challenges to authority can be detrimental to learning. He also touches on the difficulty of signaling a desire to learn without being accused of arrogance, especially in online discussions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the rise and fall of New Atheism, arguing it was replaced by social justice as the dominant online 'hamartiology' explaining society's problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the rise and fall of New Atheism, a movement that dominated online discourse in the early 2000s. He traces its origins to the early days of the internet, when intellectual debates about religion were common, and its peak in the mid-2000s with the rise of prominent atheist authors. Scott argues that New Atheism declined around 2015 as it was supplanted by the social justice movement. He proposes that both movements served a similar psychological function as 'hamartiologies' - explanations for what's wrong with the world. New Atheism blamed religion for society's ills, while social justice focuses on racism and sexism. The essay suggests this transition reflects broader changes in how people engage in online discourse and form tribal identities. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the problem of endless, unproductive arguments in online communities and proposes ways to mitigate them while maintaining healthy discourse. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problem of interminable arguments in online communities, particularly within rationalist circles. He argues that while it's important to challenge beliefs and seek out counterarguments, this can lead to repetitive, unproductive debates that people feel obligated to engage in. The post explores reasons why people get drawn into these arguments, such as feeling the need to correct misinformation, responding to insults, or defending against attempts to marginalize their views. Scott suggests several ways to mitigate this issue, including blocking trolls, being more tolerant of newbies, recognizing asymmetrical debate burdens, and emphasizing that there's no obligation to defend one's position on demand. He proposes moving discussions to private channels or longer-form content as potential solutions. 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 examines the potential future of online content filtering technology, considering its benefits, drawbacks, and societal implications. Longer summary

This post explores the future of online content filtering technology and its potential implications. Scott begins by describing existing tools like Tumblr Savior and Twitter blockbots, then speculates about more advanced AI-driven filtering systems. He considers three main possibilities: 1) everyone being better off by avoiding trolls, 2) people becoming overly sensitive by never encountering opposing views, and 3) a shift in discourse favoring the powerful over the powerless. The post concludes by suggesting that explicit filtering choices might lead to more thoughtful engagement with opposing views and the formation of separate communities with their own norms. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques feminist discourse around 'nice guys', arguing it can be unfair and counterproductive, potentially driving lonely men towards anti-feminist ideologies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'nice guys' and how they are portrayed in feminist discourse. He argues that the criticism of 'nice guys' by some feminists is often unfair and counterproductive, potentially driving lonely men towards more extreme anti-feminist ideologies. The post examines the origins of this discourse, its effects on men struggling with loneliness, and suggests a more empathetic approach to addressing these issues. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander introduces a comment policy for his blog based on the criteria of truth, necessity, and kindness, along with a reporting system and moderation approach. Longer summary

Scott Alexander outlines the comment policy for his blog, inspired by a Victorian-era saying often misattributed to Sufis and Buddha. The policy requires comments to meet at least two of three criteria: true, necessary, and kind. Scott explains each combination and provides examples. He emphasizes that the standards are relatively lax but still prohibit threats, doxxing, and slurs. Scott introduces a reporting system for comments and describes his approach to moderation, including a tiered ban system for policy violations. He acknowledges concerns about low-quality commenters and expresses intent to be more strict in moderation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander asks readers for suggestions on a new comments policy for his blog, outlining five key criteria it should meet. Longer summary

Scott Alexander is seeking suggestions for a new comments policy for his blog. He outlines five desired properties for the policy: it should make the comments section enjoyable for moderately easily scandalized people without stifling relevant controversial discussions, not require constant vigilance from him, avoid excessive subjectivity in moderation, be technologically feasible, and result in polite, productive discussions. He invites readers to share their ideas, whether they're comprehensive policies or just vague preferences. Shorter summary