Scott Alexander explores the complex ethical and legal issues surrounding sexual consent for institutionalized and intellectually disabled individuals, arguing for a nuanced approach that balances protection and autonomy. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the complex issue of consent for institutionalized and intellectually disabled individuals, particularly regarding sexual activity. He explores the tension between protecting vulnerable people from abuse and respecting their autonomy and human desires. The post examines current practices in mental hospitals, long-term care facilities, and legal cases involving disabled individuals. Scott argues that while strict legal protections are necessary, there may be ethical grounds for a more nuanced approach in certain situations, allowing for non-verbal forms of consent and considering the overall well-being of the individuals involved. He critiques both overly restrictive policies and potentially exploitative ones, advocating for a careful, case-by-case consideration of these sensitive issues. 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 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

Scott argues against the concept of 'objectification', claiming it unnecessarily stigmatizes harmless attractions and prevents potentially beneficial relationships. Longer summary

Scott criticizes the concept of 'objectification' or 'fetishization', particularly in response to writings by Ozy. He argues that the concept is flawed and potentially harmful, preventing mutually beneficial relationships from forming. Scott contends that being attracted to specific characteristics is not inherently wrong, and that the real issue is when people ignore consent, not objectification itself. He uses various examples to illustrate his point, including hypothetical scenarios and personal anecdotes. The post challenges the idea that having preferences or 'fetishes' is inherently problematic, suggesting that open communication about desires is more beneficial than stigmatizing them. Shorter summary