Scott categorizes California's 60 gubernatorial candidates into humorous types rather than covering them individually, from generic top-tier politicians to increasingly bizarre fringe candidates with conspiracy theories, supernatural visions, and incomprehensible platforms. Longer summary

Scott gives up on covering all 60 California gubernatorial candidates individually and instead categorizes them into amusing types: top-tier Democrats and Republicans who are all generic and interchangeable, conflict theorists who think fraud and Marxism are the problem, mistake theorists with shower-thought solutions, media getters who pay for fake magazine covers and polls, candidates with personal vendettas from lost court cases, AI natives whose campaigns appear AI-generated, nominative determinists who changed their names to things like 'LivingForGod AndCountry', college students ranging from socialist protesters to Catholic philosophers, anti-Semites with conspiracy theories, people on missions from God who received supernatural visions, entrepreneurs selling their platforms for $1000, those just having fun (like a single-issue pro-movie candidate), musicians with campaign songs, and increasingly bizarre candidates including one merging edtech with interdimensional pirate captains and another whose site randomly links to the Book of Enoch. 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 examines the concept of political tolerance, questioning where and why society draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable political views. Longer summary

Scott explores the concept of political tolerance and where society draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable political views. He discusses how certain issues like abortion, while deeply controversial, are treated as 'merely political' and don't typically result in social ostracism. In contrast, other views like anti-Semitism are considered beyond the pale. Scott ponders whether we should have a line at all, considering his own experience of befriending a neo-Nazi online. He then examines the logical implications of complete tolerance, including the uncomfortable conclusion that tolerating someone's political views should extend to tolerating their actions based on those views. The post ends with Scott considering a potential solution of tolerating political opinions and legal actions but not illegal ones, while acknowledging that his intuitions don't fully align with this logical conclusion. Shorter summary