When I explain my meta-ethical standpoint to people in general, I usually avoid using phrases or words such as "there is no objective morality" or "nihilism” because there is usually a lot of emotional baggage, often times go they go “ah so you think everything is permitted” which is not really what I’m trying to convey.
Terms like "moral subjectivism" are often associated with 'naive undergraduate moral relativism' and I suspect a lot of people are trying to avoid affiliating with the latter.
Do you believe in an objective morality capable of being scientifically investigated (a la Sam Harris *or others*), or are you a moral nihilist/relativist? There seems to be some division on this point. I would have thought Less Wrong to be well in the former camp.
Edit: There seems to be some confusion - when I say "an objective morality capable of being scientifically investigated (a la Sam Harris *or others*)" - I do NOT mean something like a "one true, universal, metaphysical morality for all mind-designs" like the Socratic/Platonic Form of Good or any such nonsense. I just mean something in reality that's mind-independent - in the sense that it is hard-wired, e.g. by evolution, and thus independent/prior to any later knowledge or cognitive content - and thus can be investigated scientifically. It is a definite "is" from which we can make true "ought" statements relative to that "is". See drethelin's comment and my analysis of Clippy.