Censored is not the same as on topic. At all.

Clearly, you don't understand how censorship functions. At all. Here's the quintessential definition of the concept:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Who are you or anyone else to determine what is "on topic" or not?

Jesus, you act like proper organization is somehow a bad thing. This sub is basically useless when it comes to actual economic, academic discussion. I guess that's OK so someone can voice whatever opinion they want?

I have no problem with free speech whatsoever and I'm also not the one using the veil of "topical consistency" to pursue censorship. I've lost count of the ideologues on this subreddit who complain about the "political nature" of some economic topics the moment they reveal an inconvenient economic truth which conflicts with what they want to believe or exposes the fatal flaws of some of their economic theories. One final point, who made you the arbiter of what should or should not be discussed on this subreddit. Talk about over-inflated egos and thinking one's opinion is the only one that matters. Do not project your character flaws in this direction since I am not the one who has a problem with others expressing their economic views or opinions.

"if you think" <-- fyi, a sign of a person who thinks only their opinion matters.

Wow! Your judgment really stinks given that YOU are the one who favors shutting out the views of others who do not conform with what YOU want to read or witness. I, on the other hand, welcome conflicting views on this subreddit since they open people's minds by challenging and breaking up misguided economic echo chambers.