That sounds like a lot of social anxiety to me if it's enshrined as a routine group behaviour - heat & light make me tend to think something interesting is going on that isn't being directly discussed.
I'm surprised that a group predicated on doing things better would appeal to tradition and authority as a reason for, well, anything.
And - seriously? Argument that "he" is gender-neutral? More argument for an eventual discussion of privilege as a pervasive bias.
Fascinating, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
The privilege-as-bias discussion has been had a few times, including in the context of gendered pronouns.
Which is no reason not to have it again, I suppose, but I encourage you to think carefully before doing so about your strategy for progressing it further than previous incarnations have, so we don't keep going 'round the same mulberry bush.
Unrelatedly, tradition isn't a bad thing to appeal to when it comes to the meaning of words, or really to any activity that depends on a community's predictable adherence to conventions.
Why do we drive on the right ...
In the next month, the administrators of Less Wrong are going to sit down with a professional designer to tweak the site design. But before they do, now is your chance to make suggestions that will guide their redesign efforts.
How can we improve the Less Wrong user experience? What features aren’t working? What features don’t exist? What would you change about the layout, templates, images, navigation, comment nesting, post/comment editing, side-bars, RSS feeds, color schemes, etc? Do you have specific CSS or HTML changes you'd make to improve load time, SEO, or other valuable metrics?
The rules for this thread are:
BUT DON’T JUMP TO THE COMMENTS JUST YET: Take a few minutes to collect your thoughts and write down your own ideas before reading others’ suggestions. Less contamination = more unique ideas + better feature coverage!
Thanks for your help!