Suppose that there is a norm against saying not-X. This could be anything between widespread mild discomfort at hearing not-X, and a death sentence for anyone who claimed not-X. A norm is strong when everyone follows it. If everyone follows this norm, only claims of X will be made in public, regardless of X’s truth. This is so even when X is actually clearly true and not-X is actually clearly false.
The specific norm about not-X could be opposed by not following it. The usual form of norm violation that comes to mind is to publicly say not-X when you believe not-X to be true, perhaps even when it’s irrelevant, hurtful, obnoxious, and unnecessary. But the norm is also violated by staying silent and not saying X when you believe X to be true and relevant. This is not very effective, but then again saying not-X is not necessarily very effective either, and avoiding claims of X is less costly both to yourself and others.
Furthermore, existence of a norm about not-X hurts truthful discussion of X, so possibly being truthful about X in public becomes less important than opposing the norm. This brings up the option of saying not-X when you believe not-X to be false. If followed as a general strategy, this causes topics with censorship norms to become even more actively mind-killing, poisoning all less-than-perfect wells. Compare this with saying not-X when it’s true, albeit unnecessary and hurtful/obnoxious. Also a form of poisoning the topic.
Another general strategy is to make sure that the fact of existence of censorship norms about X, and their influence on possibility of a sensible discussion of X, is well-known. But this also won’t work if there is a norm against discussing such considerations regarding X, which occasionally there is, if the influence of a pro-X agenda was particularly strong at some point in recent history. So an even more resilient strategy is to discuss this phenomenon in general, without mentioning any particular X of actual concern.
Suppose that there is a norm against saying not-X. This could be anything between widespread mild discomfort at hearing not-X, and a death sentence for anyone who claimed not-X. A norm is strong when everyone follows it. If everyone follows this norm, only claims of X will be made in public, regardless of X’s truth. This is so even when X is actually clearly true and not-X is actually clearly false.
The specific norm about not-X could be opposed by not following it. The usual form of norm violation that comes to mind is to publicly say not-X when you believe not-X to be true, perhaps even when it’s irrelevant, hurtful, obnoxious, and unnecessary. But the norm is also violated by staying silent and not saying X when you believe X to be true and relevant. This is not very effective, but then again saying not-X is not necessarily very effective either, and avoiding claims of X is less costly both to yourself and others.
Furthermore, existence of a norm about not-X hurts truthful discussion of X, so possibly being truthful about X in public becomes less important than opposing the norm. This brings up the option of saying not-X when you believe not-X to be false. If followed as a general strategy, this causes topics with censorship norms to become even more actively mind-killing, poisoning all less-than-perfect wells. Compare this with saying not-X when it’s true, albeit unnecessary and hurtful/obnoxious. Also a form of poisoning the topic.
Another general strategy is to make sure that the fact of existence of censorship norms about X, and their influence on possibility of a sensible discussion of X, is well-known. But this also won’t work if there is a norm against discussing such considerations regarding X, which occasionally there is, if the influence of a pro-X agenda was particularly strong at some point in recent history. So an even more resilient strategy is to discuss this phenomenon in general, without mentioning any particular X of actual concern.