I don't think anyone understands the phrase "rationalist community" as implying a claim that its members don't sometimes allow practical considerations to affect which topics they remain silent on. I don't advocate that people leave out good points merely for being inconvenient to the case they're making, optimizing for the audience to believe some claim regardless of the truth of that claim, as suggested by the prosecutor analogy. I advocate that people leave out good points for being relatively unimportant and predictably causing (part of) the audience to be harmfully irrational. I.e., if you saw someone else than the defendant commit the murder, then say that, but don't start talking about how ugly the judge's children are even if you think the ugliness of the judge's children slightly helped inspire the real murderer. We can disagree about which discussions are more like talking about whether you saw someone else commit the murder and which discussions are more like talking about how ugly the judge's children are.
I think of my team as being "Team Shared Maps That Reflect The Territory But With a Few Blank Spots, Subject to Cautious Private Discussion, Where Depicting the Territory Would Have Caused the Maps to be Burned". I don't think calling it "Team Seek Power For The Greater Good" is a fair characterization both because the Team is scrupulous not to draw fake stuff on the map and because the Team does not seek power for itself but rather seeks for it to be possible for true ideas to have influence regardless of what persons are associated with the true ideas.
As I see it, we've had this success partly because many of us have been scrupulous about not being needlessly offensive. (Bostrom is a good example here.) The rationalist brand is already weak (e.g. search Twitter for relevant terms), and if LessWrong had actually tried to have forthright discussions of every interesting topic, that might well have been fatal.
I think that negative low-level associations really matter if you're trying to be a mass movement and scale, like a political movement.
Many of the world's smartest, most competent, and most influential people are ideologues. This probably includes whoever ends up developing and controlling advanced technologies. It would be nice to be able to avoid such people dismissing our ideas out of hand. You may not find them impressive or expect them to make intellectual progress on rationality, but for such progress to matter, the ideas have to be taken seriously outside LW at some point. I guess I don't understand the case against caution in this area, so long as the cost is only having to avoid some peripheral topics instead of adopting or promoting false beliefs.
I updated downward somewhat on the sanity of our civilization, but not to an extremely low value or from a high value. That update justifies only a partial update on the sanity of the average human civilization (maybe the problem is specific to our history and culture), which justifies only a partial update on the sanity of the average civilization (maybe the problem is specific to humans), which justifies only a partial update on the sanity of outcomes (maybe achieving high sanity is really easy or hard). So all things considered (aside from your second paragraph) it doesn't seem like it justifies, say, doubling the amount of worry about these things.
Maybe restrict viewing to people with enough less wrong karma.
This is much better than nothing, but it would be much better still for a trusted person to hand-pick people who have strongly demonstrated both the ability to avoid posting pointlessly disreputable material and the unwillingness to use such material in reputational attacks.
I wonder what would happen if a forum had a GPT bot making half the posts, for plausible deniability. (It would probably make things worse. I'm not sure.)
There's been some discussion of tradeoffs between a group's ability to think together and its safety from reputational attacks. Both of these seem pretty essential to me, so I wish we'd move in the direction of a third option: recognizing public discourse on fraught topics as unavoidably farcical as well as often useless, moving away from the social norm of acting as if a consideration exists if and only if there's a legible Post about it, building common knowledge of rationality and strategic caution among small groups, and in general becoming skilled at being esoteric without being dishonest or going crazy in ways that would have been kept in check by larger audiences. I think people underrate this approach because they understandably want to be thought gladiators flying truth as a flag. I'm more confident of the claim that we should frequently acknowledge the limits of public discourse than the other claims here.
The main part I disagree with is the claim that resource shortages may halt or reverse growth at sub-Dyson-sphere scales. I don't know of any (post)human need that seems like it might require something else than matter, energy, and ingenuity to fulfill. There's a huge amount of matter and energy in the solar system and a huge amount of room to get more value out of any fixed amount.
(If "resource" is interpreted broadly enough to include "freedom from the side effects of unaligned superintelligence", then sure.)
Even in private, in today's environment I'd be afraid to talk about some of the object-level things because I can't be sure you're not a true believer in some of those issues and try to "cancel" me for my positions or even my uncertainties.
This seems like a problem we could mitigate with the right kinds of information exchange. E.g., I'd probably be willing to make a "no canceling anyone" promise depending on wording. Creating networks of trust around this is part of what I meant by "epistemic prepping" upthread.