[EntropyIsAHoax]

> > Not every thought that goes through a person's mind the need be put out into the open immediately. > > Straw man.

Doesn't sound like a straw man to me. What is self-censorship if not thinking through what you want to say before speaking? Generally when I speak I try to think about what effect my words will have, and if they would have what I consider to be a bad effect either on myself or others, I self-censor.

[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.

[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.

[ablob]

It is a straw man in that it implies that anything self-censored this way is something not worthy of being put out into the open, completely missing the point that a thought very well may have been been worth sharing. In essence, only the thoughts that "should not be put out into the open immediately"(1) are attacked, instead of the original meaning, in which all thoughts are included. It is left open to the reader to select (1) in such a way that the argument becomes strong for them.