Scott Alexander argues that gender imbalances in certain movements are more likely due to inherent differences in interests between men and women rather than offensive attitudes, challenging the assumption that purging perceived sexism will achieve gender parity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges the assumption that gender imbalances in movements like libertarianism are primarily due to offensive attitudes. He presents examples of groups with poor gender equality reputations that still have balanced gender ratios, such as Trump voters and the Catholic Church. He then explores research on gender differences in interests, particularly the 'interest in things vs. people' dimension, which shows a large difference between men and women. Scott suggests these underlying differences in interests and approaches to morality (e.g., utilitarianism) may better explain gender imbalances in certain fields and movements. He argues that attempts to achieve gender balance by purging perceived sexism may be misguided and could lead to unnecessary conflict within these communities. The post concludes by emphasizing the need to fight harassment and build a better world, but not with the expectation that it will automatically lead to gender parity in all fields. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes media tendencies to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements, arguing we should focus more on their stated positions and actions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media's tendency to label politicians as racist or sexist based on ambiguous statements or 'dog whistles'. He argues this often ignores the politicians' actual stated beliefs and policies in favor of overanalyzing gaffes or interpreting statements as secret codes. The post examines three cases: Ted Cruz being called anti-Semitic for saying 'New York values', Ken Livingstone being labeled anti-Semitic for comments about Hitler and Zionism, and Donald Trump being called openly sexist despite his pro-women hiring record. Scott suggests we should be more skeptical of media claims to have special insight into politicians' true beliefs and instead focus on their stated positions and past actions. 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