"Love speech" doesn't need protecting because nobody objects to it. It's the "hate speech" that needs protecting. That's the only reason that free speech exists. It is to protect speech that we do not all necessarily agree with. Anything less is eroding free speech. Congratulations on ending up against free speech, one of the cornerstones of western civilization.
Kirk - New Upcoming Policy - Bans for Racist/Sexist post
-
One more thing. Obviously Kirk is too feeble-minded to engage in serious debate on this issue. In all likelihood he will simply delete my objections and remain ignorant. He's on the wrong side of history. Free speech will always win over the tyrants like Kirk, eventually. Just wait until his ideas are the ones deemed "hate" or unacceptable when the tides shift. And they always do. That's why free speech is so important. It's sad that I have to give Kirk a lesson on free speech. It's even sadder that he's unteachable and will continue on his moronic path on the wrong side of history.
-
Dear Free Speech Trolls,
I fear you do not understand what free speech is. Thanks to free speech, Kirk has the right to kick you off his site. I have the right to criticize antiquated views formed by reading the back cover of the Bell Curve. *You* have the right to freely express those views without fear of government-sponsored censorship on your private property, the property of accommodating peers or in public spaces. Unless you are Kirk, EJMR is none of those.
Many of the views you wish to express have been debated on this site, ad nauseam. For example, we all know a certain portion of EJMR users think the quality of every female economist's work is far below their own. Their feeble justifications have been repeatedly addressed. Yet as soon as one thread dies out, another is born, restarting the discussion from the very beginning. It's a frustratingly tedious version of whack-a-mole.
At some point, debate must move forward. We have fought with you all a hundred times, but due to pure exhaustion, have now given up---many of us have learned to just ignore sexist posts. But that's not fair, either. Our silence makes it seem that we agree with these views. We do not.
One more thing. Obviously Kirk is too feeble-minded to engage in serious debate on this issue. In all likelihood he will simply delete my objections and remain ignorant. He's on the wrong side of history. Free speech will always win over the tyrants like Kirk, eventually. Just wait until his ideas are the ones deemed "hate" or unacceptable when the tides shift. And they always do. That's why free speech is so important. It's sad that I have to give Kirk a lesson on free speech. It's even sadder that he's unteachable and will continue on his moronic path on the wrong side of history.
-
^
This might be the worst anti-free speech argument I have ever read. And I have read tons of them.You basically said: "I'm tired of debating, so I will just have everyone who disagrees with me silenced". I hope you never get in a position of power in your life.
-
I'm an old timer on EJMR. I've been here for almost 7 years. I've made this site what it is (literally). I've made jokes, contributed to serious discussions,etc. I've written ridiculous nonsense and some of it was borderline sexist.
Kirk, you need to be very careful about how you're going to deal with the increased scrutiny. you need to realise that EJMR became our little corner of the internet where we could write freely without being censored by a pack of crazy progressives. I'm writing this as a sensible classical liberal.
I have no idea who you are or anything and I get that you must be getting some pretty crazy emails. But I guarantee you that your site will die quickly if you start being too aggressive on the moderation and start giving into the demands of the hrm cabal.
-
The previous poster is correct; this is a private forum and Kirk can impose any rules he wants. Although I am usually a free speech absolutist, I think that in this instance what he is doing makes sense. This site has exposed a fair amount of shoddy research and bad behavior in the profession and apologists for those things have sought to cloak their displeasure at the site's whistleblowing in righteous anger about sexism. The new policy removes that pretext. Future objections, or attempts to move the goalposts on what qualifies as sexism, will create a separating equilibrium between those who truly were concerned about sexism and those who used it as a rationale to discredit a site that provided a useful, and heretofore largely absent, service to the profession.
-
Seriously, though. Racism and sexism cannot exist in written form. Unless there is some ACTION that results in denying somebody a right or privilege on the basis of race or sex, then there can be no racism or sexism. It's simply free speech. ... Kirk is literally too dim to understand this fact. ... Kirk has clearly concluded that he is against free speech and chooses to conflate his hate for free speech with racism and/or sexism. ... Congratulations on ending up against free speech, one of the cornerstones of western civilization. ... Free speech will always win over the tyrants like Kirk, eventually.
You seem to dim to realize that Kirk neither has the legal or moral obligation to publish your racist and/or sexist thoughts. That you accuse him of conflating "his hate for free speech" with racism and sexism is particularly ironic. And it is utterly laughable to paint him as a tyrant because he doesn't want people to publish racist and/or sexist diatribes on his website.
-
It is not sexist to say or to write that one hates women. It is sexist to take an ACTION that denies a right or privilege to a woman or women based on their sex. Sexism cannot exist in free speech. It is simply free speech. Kirk is literally too dim to understand this fact.
You're clearly an undergrad. That argument of yours was destroyed decades ago. It's even in Wikipedia:
"The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance"
And even those that do not agree with Popper, believe that there's a limit to what you can tolerate. Rawls: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger"
Furthermore, please understand that EJMR reason of being is not to protect your right to free speech. It exists to make money for its owner, and he/she is free to introduce any code of conduct that leads to higher profits.
-
I see two options: people live with posts that bother them for 4-5 seconds, or people get banned through the mysterious workings of a bot.
And you know the bot will let those machine learning fanboys post whatever drivel they like. So the absolute worst content, ML, will grow without limit.
-
The is a private site. You have absolutely no protection or expectation of free speech here. I don't know what the free speech trolls don't get about that.
Of course this ban limits speech on this site but you can do whatever the f--- you want inside your own house. This is Kirks house and he makes the rules. If you don't like it then leave
-
I have been making economics posts here for years. Maybe 1 or 2 have been wrongfully deleted by the bot.
I’m all in favor of increased moderations and IP bans, but laugh at the idea of Kirk handling everything through the same bot that deletes one in ten on-topic posts seemingly at random.
-
Accuses someone of being an ungread, then proceeds to quote Wikipedia as only an ungread would. Lol, just lol. Both of you ungreads please GTFO.
It is not sexist to say or to write that one hates women. It is sexist to take an ACTION that denies a right or privilege to a woman or women based on their sex. Sexism cannot exist in free speech. It is simply free speech. Kirk is literally too dim to understand this fact.
You're clearly an undergrad. That argument of yours was destroyed decades ago. It's even in Wikipedia:
"The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance"
And even those that do not agree with Popper, believe that there's a limit to what you can tolerate. Rawls: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger"
Furthermore, please understand that EJMR reason of being is not to protect your right to free speech. It exists to make money for its owner, and he/she is free to introduce any code of conduct that leads to higher profits. -
FTFY
Furthermore, please understand that EJMR reason of being is not to protect your right to free speech. It exists to make money for its owner, and he/she is free to introduce any code of conduct that leads to higher profits...unless it involves denying to bake a cake for a certain groups wedding.