Maybe the word "evangelical" isn't strictly correct. (A quick Google search suggests that I had cached the phrase from this discussion.) I'd like to point out an example of an incident that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

(Before anyone asks, yes, we’re polyamorous – I am in long-term relationships with three women, all of whom are involved with more than one guy. Apologies in advance to any 19th-century old fogies who are offended by our more advanced culture. Also before anyone asks: One of those is my primary who I’ve been with for 7+ years, and the other two did know my real-life identity before reading HPMOR, but HPMOR played a role in their deciding that I was interesting enough to date.)

This comment was made by Eliezer under the name of this community in the author's notes to one of LessWrongs's largest recruiting tools. I remember when I first read this, I kind of flipped out. Professor Quirrell wouldn't have written this, I thought. It was needlessly antagonistic, it squandered a bunch of positive affect, there was little to be gained from this digression, it was blatant signaling--it was so obviously the wrong thing to do and yet it was published anyway.

A few months before that was written, I had cut a fairly substantial cheque to the Singularity Institute. I want to purchase AI risk reduction, not fund a phyg. Blocks of text like the above do not make me feel comfortable that I am doing the former and not the later. I am not alone here.

Back when I only lurked here and saw the first PUA fights, I was in favor of the PUA discussion ban because if LessWrong wants to be a movement that either tries to raise the sanity waterline or maximizes the probability of solving the Friendly AI problem, it needs to be as inclusive as possible and have as few ugh fields that immediately drive away new members. I now think an outright ban would do more harm than good, but the ugh field remains and is counterproductive.

Well, hiding things like this or stopping doing them is possibly even worse as far as image is concerned.

There's also the issue of demonstrating rationality. If they claim to that being rational will change your life and make you happier, but seem to live exactly like everyone else, then their claims hold less force than if being more rational makes you do seemingly weird things. There's arguments to be made that making an effort to tone down the weirdness is counter to the goal of promoting radically different means of thought than most people are used to.

I'm pro-poly, pro-cuddlepiles, and pro-cohabiting, I just think it's silly to do all these things and then act shocked when someone else points out that they are weird.

Oh no, someone told the internet about your polyamorous cuddle-piling cohabiting group of people! Did you not expect those things to get talked about it if you achieved any level of fame? Considering the judgement laid down on politicians for hints of inappropriateness, you should either make your relationships more normal and mainstream, or just learn to deal with people attacking you for the weirdness.

Unbreakable Vows are ridiculously broken, as Harry briefly observes in Ch. 74. They're even more ridiculous in fanfictions where people can just grab a wand and swear something on their life and magic and thereby create a magically binding vow. I had to nerf the hell out of their activation costs just to make the MoR-verse keep running. I can't depict a society with zero agency problems, a perfect public commitment process and an infinite trust engine unless the whole story is about that.

My odds aren't that low, but I'm similarly pessimistic because of the flexibility of one particular step--recovery of my body in time for meaningful information preservation. Most people who die young die of accidents, not protracted illnesses, which means quick vitrification is extremely unlikely. Term life insurance is around an order of magnitude cheaper than whole life insurance, but it will only protect you while relatively young; leaving you on the hook during your retirement-at-fixed-income years where the bulk of the death probability distribution is, and where timely vitrification is likelier.

I've just a couple days ago returned home from Rationality Camp, and to the best of my estimates, about half the participants prefer this ending, and also, among rationalists that I encounter elsewhere, a non-trivial portion of them prefer this ending as well. What am I saying? Other than the mass suicides, it is not immediately obvious that this original ending is "awful" in any way.

Perhaps you could start by saying, "I can only tell you if you're asking for information and you promise not to argue." I don't know how practical that is in real life.

LWers could have a convention for saying to each other, "Please tell me so that I know how I was perceived by you. I will not argue and tell you that you perceived me differently, I will not blame the messenger, and I will not subject you to the unpleasant experience of hearing me offer to change."

Dictators and pop music producers: the only good thing about them is that they eventually die, or lose power. Gaddaffi is gone. Now Cowell could be with us for eternity? A strong argument against signing up for cryonics.

Not this semester, as I didn't decide what I was going to do until a month in ;) I'll be doing compsci 101 next semester though.

Yeah I realise its a year old, but its also the first thread that shows up when searching for "Auckland" so it seems reasonable that it may get the occasional traffic ;). Also, its my understanding that the OP would have gotten a notification that I commented on this post.