Scott Alexander satirizes Bay Area culture through a fictional house party featuring absurd startup ideas and social trends. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes a satirical Bay Area house party, featuring various absurd startup ideas and social trends. The narrative follows the protagonist encountering different characters, each presenting a ridiculous concept or social commentary. These include an automated land acknowledger, a restaurant based on historical food descriptions, a reality TV dating show as a dating strategy, the reveal of 'Max Roser' as a title, and an urbanist's attempt to solve housing issues with intentionally ugly architecture. The story humorously critiques various aspects of Bay Area culture, tech startups, and social justice initiatives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the evolution of online culture wars from atheism to feminism to race, analyzing the dynamics of these shifts and speculating on future trends. Longer summary

Scott Alexander traces the evolution of online culture wars from New Atheism through feminism to the current focus on race, examining how each movement rose and fell in popularity. He analyzes the dynamics of these shifts using concepts like fashion cycles and signaling theory, and speculates on the future trajectory of culture war topics. The post explores how terms like 'SJW' and 'woke' impacted discourse, the rise and potential decline of New Socialism, and draws parallels to longer-term cycles of mainstream institutional values. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews his intellectual progress in the 2010s across various fields, crediting his blog for accelerating learning. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the intellectual progress he made in the 2010s, largely tracked through his blog posts. He discusses major updates in his understanding of topics like predictive coding theory, psychedelics, mental health, SSRIs, genetics, willpower, nutrition, x-risk, AI, scientific progress, cost disease, the replication crisis, placebo effect, ethics, politics, cultural evolution, social justice, game theory, and enlightenment. He notes that while some were major shifts in position, many represent 'deconfusion' - gaining a better map of the problem space. Scott credits his blog and reader interactions for accelerating his learning in the latter half of the decade. 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 argues against broadening the definitions of words like 'lie' and 'abuse', as it dilutes their meaning and reduces their usefulness in identifying problematic behavior. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues against broadening the definition of words like 'lie' and 'abuse' to include less severe actions. He contends that this dilutes the meaning of these terms, making them less useful for identifying genuinely problematic behavior. The post discusses how overly broad definitions can lead to everyone being labeled as liars or abusers, which removes the stigma and informational value of these terms. Scott also explains how this can be exploited by bad actors to unfairly stigmatize others. He extends this argument to other terms like 'disabled', 'queer', and 'autistic', suggesting that while some broadening of definitions can be useful, it's never right to define a term so broadly that it applies to everyone or no one. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade to traditional civic and religious celebrations, arguing that it has evolved into a form of civil religion similar to American patriotism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his experience at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, drawing parallels between it and traditional civic and religious celebrations like Easter in Guatemala and Fourth of July parades in America. He argues that the Gay Pride celebration has evolved into a form of civil religion, similar to how American patriotism has functioned as a civil religion. The post explores how the gay rights movement, which started as a counterculture, has become mainstream and incorporated many elements of traditional civic celebrations. Scott suggests that this evolution mirrors the historical development of other religions, particularly Christianity, which also started as a countercultural movement before becoming an established institution. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander humorously describes his observations at the American Psychiatric Association meeting, highlighting pharmaceutical influence, social justice focus, and historical context of psychiatry. Longer summary

Scott Alexander attends the American Psychiatric Association meeting and shares his observations in a humorous photo-essay. He notes the overwhelming presence of pharmaceutical advertising, the conference's focus on social justice issues, the presence of Scientology protesters and CIA recruiters, and the abundance of new but seemingly unnecessary psychiatric drugs. He reflects on the historical context of psychiatry, including its past political biases and progress over time, while critiquing the current state of the field and its relationship with drug companies and social trends. Shorter summary

The post criticizes the gendered framing of sexual harassment, presenting statistics on male victims and female perpetrators, and argues for a more balanced approach to the issue. Longer summary

This post critiques the gendered nature of sexual harassment discourse, arguing that it ignores male victims and female perpetrators. The author presents statistics showing that about 30% of sexual harassment victims are men and 20% of perpetrators are women. He argues that the media and society have framed sexual harassment as a exclusively male-on-female issue, silencing male victims and ignoring female perpetrators. The post suggests that this framing is deliberate and counterproductive, preventing a full understanding of the issue and making it harder for all victims to get justice. The author advocates for treating sexual harassment more like terrorism - as a universal problem that can be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the puzzling downfall of New Atheism, comparing it to other progressive movements and questioning why it alone faced backlash for repeating accepted ideas in liberal circles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the puzzling failure of New Atheism, a movement that seemingly alienated a society that largely agreed with its positions. He notes that while most educated liberals don't believe in God and agree with New Atheists on social issues, New Atheism has become more criticized than traditional religion in these circles. The post analyzes potential reasons for this failure, including the movement's repetition of obvious truths, its inability to make a case for social importance, and its possible association with an emerging cultural divide. Scott compares New Atheism's fate to other progressive movements that similarly repeat widely accepted ideas in liberal spaces but haven't faced the same backlash. He expresses confusion and frustration at this inconsistency, wondering if this self-awareness could extend to other areas of discourse. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends true meritocracy against misguided critiques, arguing for a system based on demonstrated ability rather than educational credentials. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to various articles criticizing meritocracy, arguing that these critiques often misunderstand the concept. He defines true meritocracy as positions going to those most capable, regardless of their background or education. The post argues that the current system, which heavily relies on educational credentials, is not truly meritocratic. Scott suggests that fields should focus more on demonstrated ability rather than formal education, using programming as a positive example. He emphasizes the importance of defending the term 'meritocracy' to maintain a clear alternative to the current flawed system. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines his evolving view on scientific consensus, realizing it's more reliable and self-correcting than he previously thought. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his changing perspective towards scientific consensus, sharing personal experiences where he initially believed he was defying consensus but later discovered that the scientific community was often ahead of or aligned with his views. He discusses examples from various fields including the replication crisis, nutrition science, social justice issues, and AI risk. Alexander concludes that scientific consensus, while not perfect, is remarkably effective and trustworthy, often self-correcting within a decade of new evidence emerging. 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 endorses Clinton (or Johnson/Stein in safe states) over Trump, citing concerns about Trump's unpredictability and potential negative impacts on conservatism and social dynamics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander endorses voting for Hillary Clinton in swing states, and Clinton, Johnson, or Stein in safe states. He argues against Donald Trump, not primarily on policy grounds, but because of Trump's unpredictability, potential for high-variance outcomes, and the damage he could do to conservatism and the fight against social justice extremism. Alexander expresses concerns about Trump's lack of concrete plans, his potential to radicalize the next generation towards the far left, and his movement's epistemic vices. He also touches on issues like global warming and immigration, urging readers to consider the long-term consequences of their vote. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes mainstream media's recent focus on 'coddled' college students in social justice debates, arguing it overlooks more serious issues and reflects a bias towards elite academic perspectives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expresses concern about the recent mainstream media criticism of social justice movements. He contrasts the issues raised by small bloggers, which focus on bullying and ideological rigidity, with those raised by major media outlets, which tend to focus on college students being 'coddled'. Alexander argues that this media focus is misplaced, overlooking more serious issues while amplifying relatively minor campus disputes. He suggests this bias stems from the media's overrepresentation of elite academic perspectives. Alexander fears that allowing this narrative to dominate could derail more substantive criticism of social justice movements, and sees it as indicative of a broader problem of academia's outsized influence on media and politics. 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 examines the trend of labeling various ideologies as 'religions', arguing that this approach is often overly broad and potentially misleading. Longer summary

This post discusses the tendency to label various ideologies and movements as 'religions'. Scott begins by listing examples of this trend, from environmentalism to Apple fandom. He then critiques this approach, arguing that the definition of 'religion' can be stretched to fit almost anything. However, he acknowledges that some movements do seem more 'religious' than others. Scott suggests that what we often call 'religion' might be better understood as 'culture' or 'community'. He explores the similarities between religions, cultures, and communities, noting that they all involve shared values, rules, heroes, and the potential for mind-killing. Ultimately, Scott argues that labeling these movements as 'religions' can be misleading and potentially harmful, as it carries connotations that may not be accurate or fair. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques feminist stereotyping of nerds, arguing that nerds' social struggles are real and not simply male entitlement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Laurie Penny's article about 'nerd entitlement,' arguing that feminists often unfairly stereotype and shame nerdy men. He contends that nerds' social difficulties and pain are real, and not simply a result of male entitlement or privilege. Alexander criticizes the tendency to dismiss nerds' struggles and accuse them of misogyny, arguing this perpetuates harmful stereotypes. He calls for more understanding and nuance in discussions of gender, privilege, and social dynamics in nerd culture. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that donating 10% of income to effective charities is a more impactful way to do good than political activism, and recommends joining Giving What We Can. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the moral obligation to engage in politics and activism, comparing it to other forms of doing good, particularly charitable giving. He argues that while many feel pressured to be politically active, donating money to effective charities is often a more impactful way to help others. The post suggests that instead of feeling guilty for not doing enough, people should aim to give 10% of their income to charity as a reasonable and achievable goal. This standard, promoted by organizations like Giving What We Can, is presented as a balanced approach to making a positive difference without falling into despair or inaction. Scott concludes by recommending readers consider joining Giving What We Can. 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 critiques social justice terminology, arguing that words like 'privilege' and 'racism' are used as weapons rather than tools for understanding. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the use of social justice terminology, particularly words like 'privilege' and 'racism'. He argues that these terms are often used in a way that differs from their stated definitions, serving as weapons to shut down debate rather than as tools for understanding. He uses the concept of 'motte-and-bailey doctrine' to explain how social justice advocates switch between defensible and indefensible positions. The post ends by comparing this behavior to a hypothetical government conspiracy, suggesting that the way these terms are used reveals their true nature as tools of social control. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends trigger warnings as tools for informed choice, not censorship, and criticizes arguments against them, especially those based on non-consensual exposure therapy. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues in favor of trigger warnings, stating they are not censorship but rather provide information for informed choices. He suggests a compromise for implementing warnings unobtrusively, and criticizes arguments against trigger warnings based on exposure therapy, emphasizing that therapy should not be forced on people without consent. The post has an ironic tone when discussing social justice and media criticism, but becomes more serious when addressing mental health considerations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay about trigger warnings in rationalist spaces, arguing that the community's purpose is dispassionate discussion and that everyone, not just marginalized groups, has triggers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay by Apophemi about trigger warnings and discourse in the rationalist community. He argues that the rationalist community is already a 'safe space' for people who want to discuss ideas dispassionately, and that trying to make it safe for everyone would fundamentally change its nature. He shares his own experiences of being triggered by social justice rhetoric, and suggests that everyone has triggers, not just marginalized groups. Scott also discusses issues around language use, slurs, and political correctness, arguing that context and intent matter when determining what language is harmful. Shorter summary

Scott presents evidence for the reality and high economic costs of racial and gender discrimination, arguing that fighting prejudice is important and potentially effective. Longer summary

This post argues against Reactionary politics by defending the importance of fighting racism and sexism. It presents evidence from controlled experiments showing significant discrimination against minorities in job hiring, housing, and other areas. The post then estimates the economic costs of discrimination in the US to be at least $438 billion per year, comparable to the costs of major diseases. It concludes that even small successes in reducing racism and sexism could have large economic benefits, and that while many social justice efforts may be ineffective, there is potential for evidence-based approaches to make meaningful progress. Shorter summary