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 criticizes the misuse of terms like 'debunked' in academic and political discourse, arguing for more nuanced examination of studies and their critiques. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of terms like 'debunked' and 'well-refuted' in academic and political discourse. Scott argues that these terms are often used to dismiss opposing views without proper consideration, using examples from debates on campus rape statistics and minimum wage studies. He emphasizes the importance of critically examining studies and their critiques, rather than blindly accepting claims of debunking. The post highlights the dangers of confirmation bias and the need for nuanced understanding of complex issues, rather than simplistic dismissals of opposing viewpoints. Shorter summary