[poszlem]

The difference between thinking before speaking and self-censorship is that in one case you don't say something because you think it isn't true, and in another you don't say it because you are afraid of people finding out that you think it isn't.

[buran77]

Self-censorship is the result of thinking before speaking. The arguments which made you reach that result can vary. You can choose to self-censor whether you're right or wrong.

Nobody thinks they're wrong. So I'd make the bold claim that more often than not people who think before speaking are going to self-censor because their opinion is unpopular even if objectively correct. One right statement to the wrong crowd can "sink your ship" with some terrible consequences.

The combination between this "thinking" process and the reaction of certain groups selects in favor of the opinions held by the most belligerent group. You're more likely to self-censor when your audience will throw a brick at your head compared to when they just give you a stern response.

Anyway you can have a stupid opinion on one topic and a very sound one on another topic. You can promote equality of gender while rejecting equality of race/color. Even if you believe both are equally correct you may censor your second opinion to not have it sink your first one.

[xboxnolifes]

I completely disagree with these definitions.

Thinking before speaking is filtering out anything where its cons for being said outweigh its pros. It has nothing to do with whether or not you think something is true or false. It doesn't even need to be a truth statement.

Self-censorship is a different name for the same concept. The only reason I avoid saying certain things in certain contexts is because I believe there will be negative backlash that outweighs any possible gains in communicating my thought.

[ablob]

I don't quite agree with your argument. In the literal sense thinking before speaking is just that. It can lead to you rephrasing your thoughts multiple times before you find a way to convey what you want to say in such a manner, that a listener is able to understand you. Of course, it can also lead to an act of self-censorship if the cons outweigh the pros.

Originally, the word "censorship" was not used in a context where this consideration was done, be it thoughtfully or at all. So while defining self-censorship like you do is certainly possible, it is inconsistent with other meanings of censorship, where multiple parties may be involved.

It is up to you, of course, to expand its meaning to "thinking before speaking", but other people seem to mean similar, but not quite equal, things with these words. Unifying them by using a weaker definition (Although I don't believe that "think before you speak" is well defined at all) will only lead to a loss of information that facilitates misunderstandings. I'd rather know that I might be misunderstanding something instead of having peace of mind with a definition that is so broad it becomes meaningless.

[EntropyIsAHoax]

If someone is convinced that black people are inferior to white people, I want them to be afraid to express that. I don't care about hearing evidence on certain subjects, and I want there to be societal repercussions for disagreeing about things like that.

While I do agree "cancel culture" in the way of "someone misspeaks once, so the twitter mob digs up their entire past and puts them on trial for every shitty thing they've ever said" is toxic and unhelpful, I'm perfectly in agreement that deplatforming bigots is actually helpful. As a concrete example, I'm very happy Kanye West has lost essentially all of his contracts and a lot of his supporters; he thinks "Jews secretly control the world" is true and wasn't afraid to say it, maybe others will be now and will self-censor.

[poszlem]

The problem, as usual is that "bigot" is just another word in the long list of words used to silence people. To quote Paul Graham:

<<In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force.

The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that.

We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention.>>

Coming from an ex-communist country, where the word: "reactionary" is still useless after being used as a weapon for so long, I find it really scary that it is now, again, used unironically in the west and appears to be regaining its power.

My grandmother lost her job because she was part of the anti-communist, democratic opposition, and the reason given to her was that she was "divisive, and anti-worker".

[EntropyIsAHoax]

So you suggest that everyone can express any opinion, no matter how inflammatory, without any repercussions? To be honest I find an absolute stance on that ridiculous. The questions I would ask are:

- what kinds of speech are unacceptable?

- what reaction does society take when someone crosses the line?

To continue on the Kanye example: essentially he lost his job, and I think that's perfectly acceptable. His employers/contractors found his speech disgusting, and fired him/ended his contracts. You can compare that to what happened with your grandma, and the only reason I think it's wrong is because I think pro-capitalism should be an "allowed" opinion, even though I disagree with it. To me the difference is that her opinion was a matter of political opinion, Kanye's directly targets jews, a marginalized group (note: in your grandma's case, "anti-worker" is no targeting a marginalized group since in a communist country the workers are definitionally not marginalized).

Every country I'm aware of (even the United States, for instance bomb threats are illegal) agrees that some speech should be prohibited. Where they disagree is what is prohibited and what the punishment is. In Germany, you can be jailed for denying the holocaust. Is that just? I don't really know but most of the Germans I've met agree with the law in this case.

[p1peridine]

> So you suggest that everyone can express any opinion, no matter how inflammatory, without any repercussions?

Yes.

[great_tankard]

Yes, you've gotten exactly to the heart of what I was trying to say. Of course there are people who get unfairly maligned for saying the "wrong" thing (or when the things they say have been taken out of context).

But people pushing back on what someone says is a normal, healthy part of discourse and it absolutely should scale with the power and influence of the person voicing that opinion (Kanye is the perfect example).

[trention]

[flagged]