Scott Alexander explains a reactionary philosophy model distinguishing between culturally evolved (right-wing) and memetically evolved (left-wing) policies, exploring its implications and potential applications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a key insight into reactionary philosophy, proposing a model where right-wing policies are those selected by cultural evolution, while left-wing policies are selected by memetic evolution or the marketplace of ideas. He explores the implications of this model, including how it categorizes various political movements and the challenges democracies face in balancing these forces. The post then examines the reactionary idea of a system of small dictatorships as a way to facilitate cultural evolution, discussing its potential benefits and drawbacks. Scott concludes by reflecting on the increasing speed of memetic evolution in modern times and the need to understand and possibly strengthen the role of cultural evolution as a counterbalance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary concept of 'left singularity', arguing that reigns of terror typically follow repressive right-wing regimes rather than gradual leftward shifts in democracies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary concept of 'left singularity', which posits that leftist movements become increasingly extreme until they collapse. He argues this theory is flawed, using an analogy to forest fires to show how it misinterprets causation. Scott contends that reigns of terror typically follow repressive right-wing regimes, not gradual leftward shifts in democracies. He proposes an alternative model where repressive monarchies build up pressure leading to revolution, which may be hijacked by extremists. Scott argues that moderate leftist democracies are stable and less prone to violent upheaval than far-right regimes, challenging core Reactionary claims. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, addressing focus on recent trends, class gaps, sexual norms, equality, tone, and the concept of the Cathedral. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, addressing several key points: 1) His focus on 50-year trends rather than comparing to preindustrial society, 2) The gap between upper and lower class outcomes, 3) His arguments about sluttiness and contraception, 4) Issues around equality of opportunity vs results, 5) Tone arguments, and 6) The concept of the Cathedral. He defends some of his original points while acknowledging areas where critics made good arguments. Scott also explores why social indicators worsened from the 60s-80s but have improved since, and discusses how progressive values might be extended to lower classes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses historical data to refute the Reactionary claim that modern society increases war, showing instead that violence has decreased significantly in progressive eras. Longer summary

Scott Alexander rebuts the Reactionary claim that modern society causes increased war and instability. He presents statistical evidence showing that wars and violence have significantly decreased in modern times, especially since World War II. The post examines historical data on war casualties, finding that the most progressive periods in history are also the most peaceful, while periods favored by Reactionaries (like the 1600s) were among the deadliest. Scott argues that even accounting for technological advances in warfare, the past was generally more violent. He also points out that in recent times, wars are mostly limited to less progressive countries. The post concludes that as the world has become more progressive over the past 70 years, conflicts and deaths from conflict have dropped precipitously. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the Reactionary 'uncanny valley' argument for dictatorship, highlighting its practical flaws and drawing parallels with Communist regimes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the 'uncanny valley' argument used by Reactionaries to justify dictatorship. He argues that while uncanny valleys may exist in some areas, the Reactionaries are unfairly comparing a gritty Progressive reality to an idealized Reactionary thought experiment. Scott points out the practical difficulties in establishing a perfectly secure dictatorship, especially given current popular support. He draws parallels to Communist regimes, suggesting that Reactionary governments would likely face similar challenges and compromises, ultimately becoming oppressive in their attempts to maintain power against societal trends towards Progressivism. Shorter summary

The post provides a comprehensive overview of Reactionary philosophy and its critiques of modern progressive society, attempting to present these controversial ideas fairly for the sake of debate. Longer summary

This post provides a comprehensive overview of Reactionary philosophy, presenting its arguments against modern progressive society and in favor of traditional values and governance structures. The author explains Reactionary critiques of democracy, diversity, feminism, and other progressive ideals, and presents Reactionary arguments for monarchy, cultural unity, and traditional gender roles. The post covers topics like race, colonialism, and immigration from a Reactionary perspective. While not endorsing these views, the author attempts to present them fairly to encourage debate and examination of commonly held progressive assumptions. Shorter summary