Excellent move Kirk, ignore the toxic haters
Kirk - New Upcoming Policy - Bans for Racist/Sexist post
-
Heckman?
Everything that has a beginning has an end.
EJMR was becoming too powerful. The fundamental problem is that Econ Academia in general is a major ponzi scheme. Hence the difference between those at the top and those with much lower status is in fact an artefact of something other than real substance. And that is also why status is much more important than substance. Because substance doesn’t exist or is very rare. That Prof on an affirmative action quota in Berkeley who spews equality and other such political artefacts of control and the hard working normal Prof at Bumkum University have been “given” their status. And now this status has to be maintained. You cannot allow anonymous posters destroy this well maintained artificial hierarchy.
This was only a matter of time. It was good till it lasted because I believe what I’m trying to say has now become in its own small way broadly understood. This also gives me -your resident Dark Knight a chance to finally quit this forum.
But remember everything that has a beginning has an end. The rule of the corrupt will also end. And I will be there to finish the job.
Thank You For The Nobel Prize -
Who are the Price brothers?
Link to their websites please.> Disaffected mods will sell you out, bro
The only mods here are the Price professors and their families. Kerk Phillips started EJMR but the Prices run it now.https://economics.byu.edu/Pages/Faculty%20Pages/Joseph-P.-Price.aspx
http://people.suu.edu/japrice/ -
Pre-Wu days - anti-Mormon posts deleted in seconds. Sexist, racist, anti-Semitic posts remained forever. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY threads like Family Ruptures remained for ever. That made EJMR useful.
Post-Wu days - Price brothers nervous. EJMR to toilet and everyone longs for the old EJMR days. No more Family Ruptures thanks to IP logging. The HRM cabal won.This!
-
THIS
Kirk,
You are overcompensating. You f**ked up for years by neglecting the site and letting loathsome trolls overrun the place.
Then you managed to alienate most of the first real solid mod team you had in years. Leaving you with an undergrad and a lunatic.
I don't trust you anymore and I will not divulge any real job market info knowing you may be keeping my information.
Tat handed EJMR to you when it was time, now it is time for you to do the same. -
Ils doivent envisager qu’une grande responsabilité est la suite inséparable d’un grand pouvoir.
Or to cite Churchill: Where there is great power there is great responsibility, where there is less power there is less responsibility, and where there is no power there can, I think, be no responsibility.
-
Which of those would be considered sexism/racism?
a) Damore's text about innate differences in interests between the genders
b) A text by E. Anscombe opposing abortion or defending chastity
c) Criticism of research defending affirmative action
d) The Moynihan’s report
e) Amy Wax' "Paying the price for breakdown of the country's bourgeois culture"
f) "Hahahaha, male economists are a bunch of nerd virgins"Kirk why didnt you answer this? It seems like the most important question by far.
I can see why you would want to (eg) ban posters who post obvious sexist/racist slurs like n*gger or whatever, but there are a lot of topics which get labelled as sexist/racist by those who simply want to shutdown discussions. James Damore-esque topics are an obvious example, as would (eg) discussions about racial IQ gaps in threads bout educational attainment. Some of these have direct relevance to economics/social science.
Is your goal to censor discussions which make progressives feel uncomfortable, or are you just banning racial/sexual slurs?Kirk why are you still not answering this, its the most fundamental thing about the new policy.
Are you censoring specific words, or discussions/ideas?