I would encourage you not to delete this post. This definitely is not a topic that should be posted on LW, but now that it is, you should just leave it. It will eventually get buried by other posts, and the fact that it was downvoted should be a good example “pour l’encouragement des autres”.
I think the best reason to lock out hot-button topics like this, is not because they mind-kill LWers per se (with some exceptions, the debate here has been vastly better than it would be in most forums), but because it attracts people who want to talk about politics, and they ruin everything. Part of the reason the quality of discussion here is so good, is that LW is full of obscure topics, like Newcomb’s problem and efficient charity, and people who care about those things tend to be cautious, quiet thinkers. Less Wrongers can actually have a pretty good debate about these things, but it might attract a different, more political element to our walled garden.
This would be close to ideal, regardless of whether it was the intended meaning or not. (I’d prefer simply removing the “This will be deleted” aspect, unless after calming down he no longer feels apologetic.)
I would encourage you not to delete this post. This definitely is not a topic that should be posted on LW, but now that it is, you should just leave it. It will eventually get buried by other posts, and the fact that it was downvoted should be a good example “pour l’encouragement des autres”.
I think the best reason to lock out hot-button topics like this, is not because they mind-kill LWers per se (with some exceptions, the debate here has been vastly better than it would be in most forums), but because it attracts people who want to talk about politics, and they ruin everything. Part of the reason the quality of discussion here is so good, is that LW is full of obscure topics, like Newcomb’s problem and efficient charity, and people who care about those things tend to be cautious, quiet thinkers. Less Wrongers can actually have a pretty good debate about these things, but it might attract a different, more political element to our walled garden.
Maybe
refers only to itself. i.e. Aurini intends to leave the post intact but remove the notice of apology since it distracts from the content of the post.
This would be close to ideal, regardless of whether it was the intended meaning or not. (I’d prefer simply removing the “This will be deleted” aspect, unless after calming down he no longer feels apologetic.)