In the absence of research into the issue of good governance and the conditions that affect change of government by a order of magnitude better than what is currently available, I would say promoting point two is in practice harmful advice.

Strategy 1. has a guaranteed pay-off but requires an individual to admit to himself that investment so far has been wasted. Strategy 2. can be used to rationalize any escalation of investment and past investment, a very comforting idea.

I'm not saying that (2) is easy. But a site having as mission statement "refining the art of human rationality" should definitely take an interest in the issue, since so much of human deliberation occurs in the public sphere.

But I wish to stress something, people who disinvest from politics can invest, if they really want to improve governance at any cost, into quality rationalist research that is sorely lacking. In fact I claim that a community comprised exclusively of involved and politically active citizens can in fact never come up with what would amount to "useful social science" on certain issues (say the effect of governance).

I would thus argue that a site dedicated to "the refinement of human rationality" has not only thrived because of the no mind killer rule, it might if it put its resources to it radically improve the quality of government precisely by dis-investing emotionally and resource wise from politics to partially mitigate the perverse incentives involved in the endeavour.