(Currently on my phone, so not writing a larger response)
It is correct that we want LW to aggregate a lot of the discussion in the rational sphere, but this is not the goal of the front page. The front page has much more specific epistemic goals and is trying to create a separate space for conversation about the art of rationality and existential risk in particular, and not all content from the broader rationalsphere is fit for the front page. I think this discussion is mostly about whether the content should be on the front page, not whether it should be on LW at all.
This might be more reasonable, although probably more thought is needed to define what exactly are appropriate topics for the front page. For example, I think existential risk is a very important topic but I don’t see how it’s a special case of the “art of rationality”? Also, given that sex plays a major role in human psychology and society, it doesn’t seem implausible that rationality and sex have some sizable intersection.
(Currently on my phone, so not writing a larger response)
It is correct that we want LW to aggregate a lot of the discussion in the rational sphere, but this is not the goal of the front page. The front page has much more specific epistemic goals and is trying to create a separate space for conversation about the art of rationality and existential risk in particular, and not all content from the broader rationalsphere is fit for the front page. I think this discussion is mostly about whether the content should be on the front page, not whether it should be on LW at all.
This might be more reasonable, although probably more thought is needed to define what exactly are appropriate topics for the front page. For example, I think existential risk is a very important topic but I don’t see how it’s a special case of the “art of rationality”? Also, given that sex plays a major role in human psychology and society, it doesn’t seem implausible that rationality and sex have some sizable intersection.