Scott Alexander examines Greg Lukianoff's definition of cancel culture and explores its limitations through hypothetical scenarios, arguing for a more nuanced understanding to strengthen anti-cancel-culture coalitions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses Greg Lukianoff's definition of cancel culture and explores its limitations through a series of hypothetical scenarios. He argues that while Lukianoff's definition is a good start, it doesn't address many nuanced edge cases. The post presents various examples involving pedophilia, controversial research, and media reactions to offensive content. Scott emphasizes the need for a more robust definition to strengthen anti-cancel-culture coalitions and clarify what actions are acceptable or not. He concludes that while it's difficult to define cancel culture precisely, more work on these questions could help create stronger agreements among those opposing it. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against conservatives adopting cancel culture tactics, presenting practical reasons why this approach would be counterproductive and harmful. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the recent debate among conservatives about whether to adopt cancel culture tactics against their opponents. He argues against this approach, presenting several practical considerations. These include the ineffectiveness of persecution in teaching lessons, the historical context of cancel culture, the similarity between left and right attitudes, the prevalence of friendly fire in cancellations, the negative impact on competence and institutions, and the strategic downsides for conservatives. Scott suggests alternative approaches to addressing cancel culture, emphasizing the need for principled and incremental progress. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how investigative journalism can target unpopular individuals or groups, using recent examples to illustrate the potential chilling effects and biases in media coverage. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses how investigative journalism can be used as a weapon against individuals or groups who become unpopular or controversial. He cites three examples: the plagiarism accusations against Claudine Gay, the investigation into Neri Oxman, and the negative coverage of effective altruism after the FTX scandal. Scott argues that journalists tend to dig up old scandals or minor misdeeds when a person or group becomes unpopular, creating a chilling effect. He contrasts this with his ideal of journalism comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Scott also relates this to his personal experience with negative media coverage and concludes by connecting this phenomenon to his previous article on not learning too much from dramatic events. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses Fabian vs Berserker strategies for an academic fighting wokeness, exploring various considerations and seeking reader input. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses strategies for an academic who wants to fight for academic freedom against wokeness. He presents two approaches: the Fabian Strategy (gradually building influence and opposing wokeness from within) and the Berserker Strategy (actively picking fights and challenging woke policies). The post explores various considerations, including the impact of hard-won victories, the effect of protests, convincing factors for changing views on wokeness, comparisons to historical movements like New Atheism and civil rights, potential negative consequences of poorly-planned resistance, and the current trajectory of wokeness in society. Scott seeks reader input on the best approach. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the current cultural climate, comparing it to historical norms of ideological conformity and discussing strategies to maintain intellectual freedom. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the current cultural moment, comparing it to historical periods of ideological conformity rather than extreme events like witch hunts. He argues that we're exiting a rare period of high freedom of thought and may be returning to a more typical state of subtle repression. Scott discusses the oversupply of angry tweets versus substantive action, the importance of maintaining hope in the face of authoritarianism, and reasons for optimism based on historical precedents. He also points out the need for more coherent principles in opposing 'cancel culture' and suggests studying historical transitions from repressive to open societies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the difficulties in creating consistent free speech norms beyond legal protections, proposing guidelines and emphasizing the role of community consensus. Longer summary

This post explores the complexities of establishing coherent principles around free speech norms beyond governmental protections. Scott Alexander discusses the challenges of balancing opinion expression, propensity signaling, and speech acts, using various examples to illustrate the nuances. He proposes some potential guidelines, such as allowing controversial opinions if they don't lead to dangerous actions, and not enforcing idiosyncratic rules through punishment. The post concludes by emphasizing the importance of community consensus in establishing norms and the need for clear rules in different types of communities. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the practice of signal-boosting offensive tweets to harm someone's reputation, arguing it undermines free speech and creates dangerous precedents. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a recent Twitter incident where a libertarian columnist signal-boosted an offensive tweet to potentially harm the tweeter's job prospects. He argues that this approach, while not technically doxxing, undermines free speech norms and creates a dangerous precedent. Scott draws parallels to other forms of social oppression and emphasizes that free speech isn't just about laws, but also about social norms that allow dissenting opinions. He warns of the risks of living in a 'Panopticon' where anyone's past statements can be used against them, potentially ruining lives. Scott concludes by advocating for the promotion of good social norms that protect free speech, even for those we disagree with. Shorter summary