I'm not sure I'd use censor in the context of Julia's post. It read more like the next thing you quoted. Something's well-trod and people have strong opinions but absolutely no one is going to change their mind or really make a novel point or learn anything new.
I do think there are things that many people self-sensor, e.g. opinions that fall outside or on the edges of the orthodoxy of some bubble and is just going to trigger emotional arguments/stereotyping/downvotes/etc.
If you're interested in the ways in which especially women receive strident pushback in a way that trains them to self-censor, I'd suggest reading Manne's "Down Girl: the logic of misogyny". She's an analytic philosophy professor, so it's a bit academic in spots. But I think it does a good job cataloging the many ways in which women are put "in their place", a place that very much includes a lot of self-censorship.
What you're talking about is a real thing (I've seen its effect on women in my life) but I'd prefer to take Julia's post at face value, which shows her as someone with a quiet enthusiasm for tech who doesn't enjoy pointless Internet arguments. Honestly, we could probably do with more people like that.
If your point is that life's hard, or that patriarchy is also bad for men, I certainly agree. But neither of those prevents me from recognizing the specific ways that patriarchy is bad for women. Indeed, you might consider that a guy leaping in to a point about misogyny to tangentially focus the discussion back on a man's feelings is an example of the problem.
Imagine, for example, there's a really interesting scientific paper someone would love to talk about but it's in the field of Climate Science. Everyone knows the comments a blog post on it is going to get. And they're (almost) all going to be the same no matter what the paper is actually about. Every time.
Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?
> Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?
I'm a little surprised to hear that people don't do this in person as well as online. There are numerous topics I avoid bringing up because I know nothing productive will result from the conversation. It is rarely about politics or religion, just topics whose novelty offer a low probability of productive insights and will probably require a sufficient time investment.
Choose your battles/topics of conversation, you only have so many hours in your life.
If it seriously challenged the orthodoxy of, say, HN, nothing's keeping me from submitting it but, no, I probably wouldn't comment even if it made what I think are some interesting points, in part because I'm not an expert on the area.
There are some topics guaranteed to attract 500+ comments that are mostly nothing but rants about big companies, Musk, the US, etc. Better to just avoid.
People are going to feel all kinds of things. Asking whether or not they should feel them is a dead end in the context of public forums, because nobody controls anybody else's feelings, or how each individual reacts to a feeling.
Sincere, productive conversations are mostly going to take place in more private forums like group chat or face to face. Public discussion threads are better suited for identifying friends and enemies, playing and joking around, and signaling status.
It's not a dead end, because public forums are not natural phenomena. They are things we design, build, maintain, and police. Personally, I want experts to be able to talk about their work without feeling abused, harassed, or threatened. I want it not just for myself, but so that we can have a society based on truth, not just on who can shout the loudest or who can be the biggest jerk.
> I want experts to be able to talk about their work without feeling abused, harassed, or threatened
Most experts are idiots (specifically “intellectual yet idiot“). Protecting bad ideas (expert or not) against criticism is an immense danger to society.
If your ideas and findings can’t stand on their own, I can’t help but think they must not be very strong.
Oh and if you think that what you post on the internet is you, and it’s you personally that’s being attacked when people respond to your words…
Your inability (or, more likely, refusal) to distinguish between valid criticism of ideas and abuse, harassment and threats is a fine example of a core problem of online dialog.
abuse, harassment and threats targeted at people are illegal. I agree that they're unacceptable.
Ideas have no such legal protection, for good reason. If they are stupid or poorly presented, they can be dunked on for cool points. This is one kind of activity people enjoy doing and spectating on public forums, and it's a net positive to society.
> I want experts to be able to talk about their work without feeling abused, harassed, or threatened
> Should someone feel they have to self-censor just to avoid this?
You keep mentioning feelings. This is what I'm responding to. I get the impression that you want the law to step in and silence other people when you feel bad. In public, such an arrangement is stupid. Conversely, it can be beneficial in private spaces where participants consent to community guidelines, formal or informal, at the outset.
If we agree that policing public speech based solely on what people feel is a bad policy, then this whole conversation has been sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And if we disagree, all I can leave you with is this: what if whatever harmless, perfectly legal thing you say makes somebody else feel bad? Should you be silenced?
I do think there are things that many people self-sensor, e.g. opinions that fall outside or on the edges of the orthodoxy of some bubble and is just going to trigger emotional arguments/stereotyping/downvotes/etc.