I don’t see anything wrong with sex-related content, especially if it’s marked by appropriate content warnings. By the way, I think we should also have a system of tags and various options to filter by tags.
I’m not sure where in the linked post is “cursing”. Is “pussy” a curse?
Going one meta-level higher, I want to observe that much of the potential value of LW is precisely the aggregation of all discussions in the rationalsphere into a single place. If we end up with a set of norms that will cause bloggers to avoid cross-posting, or to cross-post censored versions, much of this aggregation value is lost. A plausible result of this is that people will keep reading the blogs and ignoring LW.
(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.
I don’t see anything wrong with sex-related content, especially if it’s marked by appropriate content warnings. By the way, I think we should also have a system of tags and various options to filter by tags.
I’m not sure where in the linked post is “cursing”. Is “pussy” a curse?
Going one meta-level higher, I want to observe that much of the potential value of LW is precisely the aggregation of all discussions in the rationalsphere into a single place. If we end up with a set of norms that will cause bloggers to avoid cross-posting, or to cross-post censored versions, much of this aggregation value is lost. A plausible result of this is that people will keep reading the blogs and ignoring LW.
(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.