Scott Alexander presents multiple satirical scenarios of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner' to critique various aspects of democracy and political behavior. Longer summary

This post is a satirical take on democracy using the metaphor of 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner'. Scott Alexander presents multiple variations of this scenario, each highlighting different aspects of democratic systems, political behavior, and societal issues. The scenarios touch on topics such as the electoral college, political pandering, deficit spending, voting against self-interest, special interests, fact-checking, immigration, compromise, foreign interference, Brexit-like situations, and coalition politics. The tone is humorous and ironic, using the wolf-sheep dynamic to illustrate various critiques of democratic processes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores 'bicameral reasoning', comparing how we often weigh issues equally (like the US Senate) instead of proportionally to their importance (like the House), leading to potentially skewed decision-making. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of 'bicameral reasoning', drawing parallels between the US House and Senate representation systems and how people make decisions or judgments. Scott Alexander argues that often we give equal weight to issues of vastly different importance, much like how the Senate gives equal representation to states regardless of population. He illustrates this with examples from political issues, animal welfare considerations, and environmental concerns. The post suggests that this 'Senate-like' thinking can lead to poor decision-making by equating minor issues with major ones. While acknowledging some potential benefits to this way of thinking in extreme cases, the author ultimately argues for a more proportional 'House-like' approach to evaluating issues based on their actual impact or importance. Shorter summary

Scott critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify bans, arguing that they often disguise sacred values and can lead to more harm than good. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify banning practices. Scott starts with a satirical proposal to ban healthcare to prevent non-consensual treatment, then extends this to banning non-Democrat candidates to prevent accidental voting. He argues that these 'fake consensualism' arguments are often used to disguise sacred values as neutral principles. The post explains that while consent is important, banning practices entirely based on the possibility of non-consent often leads to more harm than good. Scott concludes by calling for a higher burden of proof for such arguments and suggesting that Basic Income Guarantee would be a better way to ensure genuine consent. Shorter summary