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 compares two contrasting models of how social movements gain or lose respectability, using examples from gay rights and environmental issues to explore their implications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'respectability cascades' in social movements, comparing two contrasting models. The first model, exemplified by the gay rights movement, suggests that when less respectable individuals publicly support a cause, it gradually becomes more acceptable for increasingly respectable people to join. The second model, illustrated by issues like endocrine disruptors and immigration, suggests that when disreputable people champion a cause, it becomes toxic and respectable people avoid it. Scott discusses the strategic implications of these models, particularly for his own interest in protecting scientific integrity from regressive leftism. He considers various factors that might determine which model applies in a given situation, such as the initial level of taboo, the likeability of supporters, and the availability of alternatives for supporters. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander, though pro-gay rights, criticizes the suspension of Phil Robertson for his comments, arguing for broader societal tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a post by JT criticizing defenders of Phil Robertson, who was suspended for his comments about homosexuality. Scott, while being pro-gay rights, expresses concern about Robertson's suspension. He argues that although freedom of speech doesn't legally bind private actors, there's a societal need for tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements. He draws parallels with religious freedom and warns against normalizing punishment for expressing opinions, suggesting it could backfire on minority groups like atheists or gay people. Scott emphasizes the importance of counterarguments over punitive actions in ideological debates. Shorter summary