So, you don't want this community, and judging by the karma scores, this community doesn't want you.

There is an obvious win-win solution.

If discussions about how best to accomplish this are "mind killing" then the smartest people in our civilization (no, not the posters on this blog) are all brain-dead.

Neither Yudkowsky nor me argues that discussions about how best to accomplish this are always "mind killing". It something you think because you are angry and that anger prevents you from clearly understanding what other people are thinking.

That anger mind killed you. It makes you ineffective at convincing other people.

People in the real world don't refer to intelligent political positions as "mind-killing."

Being angry is no intelligent political position.

If you live in China you can achieve some political ends by getting a sufficent number of people angry. You can't in Western democracies. Julian Assange made the point that most of the actual power is in contracts which just won't change because someone is angry. I'm not 100% with Assange on the point but he said, that the reason free speech is legal in Western democracy while it isn't in China is that political power in Western democracy is stable enough that you don't change power structures with free speech.

According to him the effort that a given government extends at suppressing a certain type of speech correlates to that speech potential to create substantial political change.

Lesswrong is an echo chamber for people whose priorities are computer programming above all else. Such people will spend their lives programming mostly for other people, because their vision is too narrow to own their own lives.

Actually no. There are plenty of people here no care about saving lifes in Africa through bet nets that have been proven to be effective. They are not angry that people die to malaria. They just calculate how they can safe as many lifes as possible and then engage in that cause of action.

Then MIRI wants to prevent our world from getting destroyed by an unfriendly artificial intelligence and many people here think that's a more important project than being angry that some political injustice.

I myself did even do mainstream media interviews in Germany about QS where one of the points I make is that people shouldn't rely on authorities but trust their own judgment. I'm no apolitical person. I however don't let emotions like anger cloud my intellectual abilities to understand the world in all it's shades of grey.

When it comes to a topic like the war on drugs I know the background of politics that doubled the amount of marijuana that you can carry around in Berlin without getting charged with a crime. The people who acted there politically weren't angry.

In the US there are many places where medical marijuana polls much better than drug legislation. If you actually want to win politically it can make a lot of sense to focus on something like medical marijuana for which it's easier to find a societal consensus than focusing on anger that everything isn't legalised.

Political successes need coalition building and that usually doesn't happen from a place of extreme anger.

There is no politics without a fight, and that conflict is still well worth having. If intelligent minds don't matter to the fight, then the fight would, by definition, not be worth having.

Intelligent minds don't fight battles because they see an injustice but because they think that they can have an effect by fighting a particular battle.

To the topic Rop Gonggri speech at the 27th Chaos Computer Congress comes to mind. Rop was involved in Wikileaks and it was just a few months after the banking blockade against Wikileaks started.

People ask me “Anonymous… That is the hackers striking back, right?” And then I have to explain that unlike Anonymous, people in this community would probably not issue press release with our real names in the PDF metadata. And that if this community were to get involved, the targets would probably be offline more often.

This is a mental maturity issue: our community has generally succeeded in giving black belts in computer security karate only to people that have proven a certain level of mental maturity. Yes, some of us could probably do some real damage to Paypal and Mastercard. But then we also understand that no good comes from that. In the unlikely event that someone here has not yet reached this level of maturity, please do not connect your machine to the network and talk to some of the other people here for additional perspective.

Children get angry when someone takes away there toys. In modern complicated political conflicts getting angry doesn't help. It's much better to have mental maturity and think things through.

Understanding when blue/green thinking prevents you from accurately thinking about an issue and it mind kills you is important if you want to achieve political goals.

I did see Julian Assange two times live in Berlin on the Chaos Computer Congress. I never did participate in Wikileaks myself but I have seen a bunch of people who did at the Chaos Computer Congress and know how they think politically. They aren't the kind of people who are angry but rather think that you are naive for getting angry. They think of the anonymous crowd who does DDoS out of anger as immature.

At the last LessWrong meetup I attended I did propose to another attendee a specific way to be politically active and a signifcant amount of energy in it.

Yeah, I'm verbose, but newborn synthetic intelligences here shouldn't have any trouble scanning what I'm saying.

At the same time it shows that you don't care enough about the ideas that you are advocating to write them in a way that's more likely to be persuasive. You care more about signaling that you are angry than about doing something that wins political battles.

It's to engage the general populace rationally, using the time-tested means that have previously produced good results (informed democracy; agitation).

You don't engage people rationally by being angry. CFAR which came out of this community is engaging in trying to teach the general populace rational thinking. They don't try to teach them political answers but they try to teach them to think for themselves.

For all your pretense of wanting to push individuality you think that you should focus on teaching others your answers to political question instead of teaching them to think for themselves. CFAR goes another way.

HPMoR is also quite political when it tries to hone down lessons such as the importance of taking responsibility to safe other people instead of just following a role. The way Harry tries to teach evil Draco rationality to turn him good is a proposal for political action.