Scott Alexander reviews Ezra Klein's 'Why We're Polarized', finding it asks important questions about political polarization but provides few clear answers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Ezra Klein's book 'Why We're Polarized', which examines the historical and structural reasons for increasing political polarization in the United States. The book argues that the realignment of the Dixiecrats from Democrat to Republican in the 1960s allowed natural polarization to occur. Klein discusses factors like identity alignment, nationalization of politics, and negative partisanship as drivers of polarization. Scott finds some of Klein's arguments unconvincing, particularly regarding Republicans, and wishes for more international comparisons. He concludes that while the book asks important questions about polarization as a key political problem, it doesn't provide many clear answers. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes a Boston Review article on futurism for focusing on identity politics rather than substantive future predictions, arguing this approach trivializes important technological and societal developments. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article from Boston Review about futurism, highlighting five main issues. He argues that the article fails to make real arguments about the future, misunderstands the concept of Singularity, wrongly associates certain technologies with privilege, falsely portrays conflict between different futurist groups, and grossly underestimates the impact of potential future changes. Scott contrasts this with his view of futurism as a serious endeavor to improve the human condition and prepare for potentially massive changes. He expresses frustration that much current discourse about the future focuses on identity politics rather than substantive issues, drawing a parallel with an 18th-century futurist novel that was more concerned with religious prejudice than imagining actual changes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that accusations of Trump being an 'openly white supremacist' candidate are exaggerated and harmful, and calls for more measured criticism of Trump's actual flaws. Longer summary

In this post, Scott Alexander argues that accusations of racism and white supremacy against Donald Trump and his supporters are exaggerated and harmful. He contends that while Trump has said and done problematic things, claims that he is an 'openly white supremacist' candidate are not supported by evidence. Alexander reviews various arguments about Trump's alleged racism and rebuts them, citing statistics and providing context. He argues that treating Trump as uniquely racist compared to past presidents is inaccurate and counterproductive. The post ends with a call to stop 'crying wolf' about racism, as it causes unnecessary fear and may desensitize people to real instances of racism in the future. Alexander makes several predictions about what will happen under a Trump presidency to back up his argument. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how 'weak men' arguments can be weaponized to unfairly discredit entire groups, forcing defensive coalitions and unnecessary conflicts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'weak men' arguments and how they can be used as 'superweapons' in debates. He explains how targeting the weakest or most extreme members of a group can unfairly discredit the entire group, even if most members don't share those characteristics. The post explores this dynamic in various contexts, including religion, atheism, feminism, and men's rights movements. Scott argues that this tactic forces people to defend even the worst members of their group, creating unnecessary conflicts and making it difficult for individuals to distance themselves from extreme positions within their broader category. Shorter summary