Scott Alexander examines why conservative political victories seem to cause public opinion backlashes while liberal victories don't, presenting several theories but remaining uncertain. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the phenomenon of political backlash following major policy victories, comparing conservative and liberal wins. He notes strong backlashes against conservative victories like Trump's presidency and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but observes little to no backlash against liberal victories such as the legalization of gay marriage or the passage of Obamacare. The post presents several possible explanations for this asymmetry, including media influence, the perceived direction of history, and the visibility of immediate negative consequences. However, Scott remains uncertain about the true cause and the predictability of such backlashes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews and explains his votes on California's 2022 ballot propositions and candidates, providing analysis and commentary on each item. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews his California ballot for 2022, discussing state propositions and candidates for various offices. He explains his voting philosophy, analyzes each proposition and candidate, and provides his reasoning for his votes. The post covers topics like abortion rights, gambling legalization, school funding, tobacco regulation, and various political races, offering a mix of analysis, humor, and personal opinions on California politics and governance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews recent prediction market changes and defends the usefulness of prediction markets, focusing on Ukraine, Roe v. Wade, and other topics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews recent changes in prediction markets related to the Ukraine war, the Supreme Court leak on Roe v. Wade, and other topics. He discusses the usefulness of prediction markets, arguing that their main advantage is not accuracy but trust, aggregation, and clarity. He also describes an experiment in market manipulation on Manifold Markets and its implications. The post concludes with a look at some interesting recent predictions on topics like dog cloning, anti-aging, and Chinese politics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest and reviews all entries, praising their strengths and noting their impact on readers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest. The winning entry is about calorie restriction and aging by Adrian Liberman and Calvin Reese, with a close second on the ethics of eating meat by David G and Froolow. Scott praises both entries for their different strengths: the calorie restriction piece for its focused approach on a factual question, and the meat ethics piece for its comprehensive review of arguments. He notes that the meat ethics collaboration had a significant impact on readers' eating habits. Scott then briefly reviews the other entries, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. He concludes by explaining the prize distribution and his decision not to run the contest next year, citing various challenges. Shorter summary

Two authors debate when abortion becomes morally wrong, presenting arguments for conception vs. fetal viability as the ethical cutoff point. Longer summary

This post is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where two authors with differing views on abortion debate when during fetal development abortion becomes morally wrong. The authors first review data on abortion rates, pregnancy risks, and socioeconomic impacts. Icerun argues that abortion becomes wrong at conception based on the 'Future Like Ours' argument, while BlockofNihilism contends it's acceptable until fetal viability or minimal neurological activity. They present their arguments, rebut each other's positions, and ultimately reach different conclusions while agreeing on the importance of reducing abortion need through better support systems. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces that the adversarial collaboration contest will proceed, lists the registered teams, and introduces a new rule for proposing topics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides an update on the adversarial collaboration contest he previously announced. He lists seven teams that have registered so far, covering topics such as circumcision, incarceration, the simulation argument, abortion, critical learning periods, and eating meat. With more than five teams registered, Scott confirms that the contest will officially take place. He invites others to form teams in the comment section, with the caveat that only people with usernames A-M can propose topics, while those with names N-Z must accept existing proposals. This rule is an experiment to address the issue of participants preferring to propose their own topics rather than accepting others'. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the complex relationship between contraception and abortion rates, concluding that in societies where contraceptives are already legal, increasing access likely decreases abortion rates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines the complex relationship between contraception use and abortion rates. He first presents arguments suggesting contraception might increase abortion rates, including the Peltzman effect where safety measures lead to riskier behavior. He then explores evidence that contraception decreases abortion rates, including historical data and controlled studies. Scott concludes that while legalizing contraceptives in a society might initially increase abortion rates as part of a broader cultural shift, in societies where contraceptives are already legal, increasing access likely decreases abortion rates. He especially emphasizes that highly effective contraceptives like implants or RISUG are very likely to reduce abortions when they replace less effective methods. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that claims about pro-lifers secretly wanting to oppress women are uncharitable and likely false, and that we should engage with actual philosophical disagreements on abortion. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article arguing that pro-lifers don't actually care about fetuses but only want to coerce women. He argues this claim is uncharitable and likely false for several reasons: 1) It misunderstands the non-consequentialist ethics of many pro-lifers, 2) There's no evidence of widespread secret motivations, 3) It's unclear what it would even mean to 'not really believe' something, 4) It commits the genetic fallacy. Scott argues we should engage with the actual philosophical disagreements rather than impugning motives, and that the principle of charity is important when discussing contentious issues like abortion. 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