I brought up several examples of times where self-censorship might not be a bad thing. Robert was the one who decided to make it all about "Trans stuff", focusing on it exclusively in his response. 
Alright listen: if you melons turn this into another fucking Is jkrolling a turf I'm calling the mods. Get the fuck back on topic @darthmongoose @Freemints30 @RobertBMarks @NickRowler
Second
I really think you need to rethink you definition of "censorship" @darthmongoose
CENSORSHIP is NOT "I will not indulge and fuck children" it's "I will not tell people I'm a pedophile" which is 100% bad for not just the person but for society.
The idea of not being allowed to talk about things cause its "ugly" or "uncomfortable" is how we get to the point where we tell our gay cousin "look just don't tell Grama cause then everyone has to deal with her feeling weird and you don't want that!" Rather then having a god damn conversation and just getting your baggage out.
Does it need to be in their books? Maybe!? Who knows its gonna really depend on what the book is about! Is it about dealing with being a pedo and NOT being a shit head and confirming to society without endangering either yourself or children? I think that's great! But if people say it can't be in book stores because the soccer moms are upset about it then no one's really able to have a conversation then.
Conversation are important even if they're as fucking stupid as "the earth is flat" why? Because then you have a chance to CONVINCE the idiot who things it's flat that it isn't.
I'm not saying you brought it up, I'm just always surprised by how easy it goes there now days. It's the topic of the century I suppose.
Dude I wasnt the one who brought the topic up. In fact was i still was talking about censorship but you do you . I'm sorry I have little tolerance for misinformation and bigotry that has hurt soo many people. Maybe I should just lie down and go "yup true". But I guess some folks here do have that privilege. Of being enablers
Personally I dispise censorship I dont trust any human to have a consistent values or what's right or wrong.
I generally say write what you want and not be a dick head and know who you are appealing to.
I love this, "everybody shut the FUCK UP about something I've decided is off topic! By the way, here are my opinions about it........"
But this is the point. The topic is "SELF-censorship"; it's about what we, as creators, choose to put in our work, right? And that might be something about our beliefs, or something we believe is important to discuss, or to present as potentially sympathetic in the face of often being presented as problematic, disgusting or wrong.
So, for example, CLAMP, a manga circle I'm actually generally a fan of, have made quite a few comics that involve pairings between adult characters and minors. A noteworthy one is that in Cardcaptor Sakura, there's a subplot between side characters in which a teacher and one of his students, who is aged 11 are betrothed to be wed when the girl is old enough, and they act like a couple. It's presented as though this is fine, harmless, even beautiful.
The question is, "is that okay? Should they have included that in their work? Or is that glamourising grooming?"
That's the question we as creators have to ask ourselves about this stuff, especially when it's around a subject like paedophilia. There are plenty of other anime and manga with similar themes or sexualised-looking depictions of underage characters. The whole point of this thread is to discuss where the responsibility lies: With the creator...or the audience? And there's no one right answer. I personally believe creators have responsibility but... obviously other people have different ideas, but I don't think my comment on Paedophiles not reflecting their feelings in their work was in any way off-topic just because your belief (which by the way is the same as mine) is "no, they shouldn't because that stuff is awful and wrong."
If conversation is important no matter how stupid, ugly, or uncomfortable it is, then why is bringing up a writer's unfiltered thoughts about a controversial debate considered "off topic" in a thread about self-censorship?
But TAM didn't continue on the off topic, they went back to the topic of censorship, which is what the thread is about 
I wouldn't censor it, but I do find it an annoying and grading topic regardless of what side people stand on, it's been talked to death but keeps popping up and killing conversations in a lot of places.
I would never tell anyone they can't talk about something, but would I perhaps suggest they filter how much they talk about it? Maybe. But there is a difference between censorship and filtering.
Because the conversation was beginning to be more about JkR and Trans stuff than it was about censorship.
Anyway, getting back on topic. Self-censorship is a tricky area period. The bottom line, it's too much of a guessing game to figure out what to censor at this day and age. Your mileage will vary depending on audience.
This. I feel like JKR is a perfect example of how just running your mouth can lead to a lot of people being turned off by their work. I guess it is the catch-22 of a creator, do you state your opinions or stay quiet so you don't upset people. I feel like social media and bad press has lead to people avoiding media and boycotting stuff.
Like the whole Captain Marvel is another example of this. The statements the actress made pissed people off and a lot of people avoided watching the film.
I think it's also the thing I sort of dislike about social media. Everyone feels entitled to put their two cents into every topic no matter how misinformed they are on a topic. And I think it just causes the spread of a lot of misinformation. When the conversation about transpeople is being dominated by people who know nothing about transpeople or hate them it leads to people parroting back BS.
This is the thing? Like, her whole deal that Darthmongoose detailed is a GREAT example of the dynamics of self-censorship, be they arguments for or against. This idea that just because it's a flashpoint for heated opinions doesn't make it any less apt a case study. But because it has "Trans stuff" in it oh now it's out of bounds and us queers can't be trusted to behave when talking about it... it's so very interesting how all of a sudden a bunch of people are like "HOW DARE YOU BRING THIS UP WE WERE HAVING A LOVELY DAY" it's just like... uh huh.
But @darthmongoose was using J.K. Rowling as an example to bolster her argument about how she feels about self-censorship - this was still on topic. If the topic then steered towards arguing about trans-issues specifically, wouldn't it be more productive to say, "Let's stick to discussing how JKR is relevant to the self-censorship conversation," as opposed to, "If we're going to talk about JKR at all, I'm getting the mods to shut this down"?
Finally someone said it, very sus. I dont agree with darth fully on the ideas of self censorship. But she made solid arguements, dont agree but that's neither here nor there
But yeah I would say weird how people jump to defense of very bad misinformation with "urg bring up the tran ideology 
"
Very hmm...
Oh, I've said my piece and I'm out of this thread - I've got it on muted now. People will agree with me or disagree with me, and both are fine.
Hey, again I don't have a problem with anyone talking about what they want to. I just find it funny that Trans stuff seems to work its way into most conversations today.
Also I should clarify, I'm not saying thar anyone was actually getting off topic, but you asked why he would want us to stop talking about those things and I was giving you an answer I thought was his reasoning more than my own.
I still stand by my initial response to the main question.
I think it's important to draw a line between censorship and filtering.
I don't think creators should censor their work. There will always be a group of people out there who don't like what you have to say or how you say it. Yes, we want people to enjoy our work but I believe we have to first tell our stories for ourselves. Censoring our work, in my opinion, waters it down and dilutes it from the heart of thoughts were probably trying to paint.
That being said, we as creative also need filters. We need to know how far is far enough, not because someone else will be offended, but because at a certain point we start to become counter productive. We have to know what is necessary. And that's not censorship.
Censorship is like throwing away ingredients. Filtering is like having ingredients but choosing what to use and how much of it to use so your recipe turns out right, and sometimes that means very little or not at all.
I think our responsibility is to tell an honest story and introduce new ideas. And we can do that with tactic without censorship.
Now, will people be happy? Will everyone agree? Probably not. But every story isn't for everyone. Every idea doesn't need to cater to the masses. It's better to be bold and authentic and hated than it is to be watered down bland and possibly liked...in my opinion anyway.
It's bloody hilarious that people are attempting to censor others by claiming things are off-topic and then refusing to engage in the conversation when they chime in.
I think Darthmongoose gave some great examples that discuss the nuances of self-censorship and the power our works have in the world. You have to be responsible with what themes and messages you put across, and if you're an asshole that doesn't care and claims that freedom of speech allows you to say anything you like, then I'd like to direct you to a lot of legal laws around defamation and libel.
Before I peace out I'd like to confirm one thing.
JK ROWLING IS A TERF. Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Have a blessed day all.
I also stand my my initial response: 99%^ of these cases could've just been dealt with via content warnings 
Want to make a tweet explaining why you think gender = sex? Sure, do that - just tag it with (cw: gender critical) so people can ignore it if they want to.
Want to write a book about your experience as a pedophilie? Sure, do that - just tag it with (cw: pedophilia) so people can ignore it if they need to.
In so many of these cases, there's no good reason to prevent the information from existing. All the harms could be dealt with via a simple warning. Am I missing something or is it really not that complicated?
It's annoying, but I don't think that constitutes censorship - claiming something is off-topic or not engaging doesn't prevent the other person's argument from existing, and they're not stopping them from making a new topic where they can discuss the off-topic stuff.
For instance, calling out 'whataboutism' is essentially just claiming that something is off-topic. If, for instance you're talking about women's issues and someone comes in and are all like 'but men have it hard too', telling them to take that discussion elsewhere isn't saying they should shut up about men's issues or that they're not important - only that it's not what you're talking about right now, in this space.
For another example, I once discussed the merits of IP with @RobertBMarks and he ended the thread essentially saying I shouldn't have brought up my anti-IP ideas into that thread because it was off-topic.3 I was salty about it and was tempted to call him out on hypocrisy when he expressed an anti-self-censorship stance in this thread, but it would've been wrong of me to do so since he technically didn't ask me to self-censor - he just said I was 'hijacking' the thread we were discussing in and he probably wouldn't have minded if I made my own thread talking about my beliefs.
(Since there's plenty of salt in this thread already, figured it couldn't hurt to add my own two grams onto the pile :'D Besides, Robert has muted the thread already so it's not like he's gonna see this XD
And incidentally, as much as I've got a bone to pick with the guy, I can't help but notice that as soon as he brought up J.K Rowling^^, everyone focused on that part of his comment instead of the actual core of his argument:
I honestly want to know what pro self-censorship people's solution to this is, if they think some things should never be said. (Again, my solution is that everything should be allowed to be said - just some things should be tagged with a content warning.))
^ again, jokes are a difficult area, but stories and opinion pieces are 100% amenable to content warnings
^^ Just for the record, I'm not in camp 'Rowling did nothing wrong' - I'm in camp 'Rowling was wrong but allowing her to be wrong is a necessary consequence of a free society, and if she tags her incorrect speech, that already eliminates 99% of the negative consequences of her saying those wrong things'
If you look at the op's quote it is about how we censor ourselves online, it's not about censoring our work, it was about social media. And I ask of you: Whomst among us posts who we really are and what our real complete opinions are online?????
whomst?
Twitter doesn't give us enough characters to do that, it's not possible if we tried, so we must censor ourselves constantly because there's no room to properly discuss and defend your position. So the best model is to just never get in a fight.
And in that context, it changes what censorship even means in regard to our online works. That isn't self-censorship at all, that is just desperately trying to fit our works into a mold our audience can easily digest so the algorithm will prop us up. Is that story too spicy for tapas? That's just the tapas company/audience telling you what to do, isn't it? That isn't even about the ethics of what you're writing, that's just trying to be as appealing as possible and trying to remain on a site that is also on the Apple store.
I personally think you can only self-censor if your works aren't on the internet, and what 'can' exist and 'should' exist on the internet is constantly evolving.
My question and why I started this topic was
"do you self censor your own work and then not write it even if you would want to?"
I was just interested how other creators handle this because I´m dealing with it a lot
and I have the constant feeling of self censoring my original ideas a lot and I wanted
to know if other people do that too and how they deal with it.
I don´t want to judge other creators or tell other creators what to do and what´s wrong
or right. I honestly don´t have an opinion on that
Exactly. I see absolutely zero reasons why should I censor myself EXCEPT when it comes to following the rules of specific platform. If you don't want to see something uncomfortable, then just don't read/watch it.
I think the core of the issue is that the conversation is dealing with enormously different types of self-censorship. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the side of darthmongoose and everyone else in that media can affect beliefs etc., but it was dealing with something a lot bigger than what you were looking for : p
Bringing the question back to on topic??? maybe it was still on topic?? But reducing the scale - the best way to self-censor in practice is to research. Do you have enough confidence in writing about this minority, this disability, this IRL heated subject? If not and you're short on time, it's best to enact that self-censorship and deal with it elsewhere.
But, that's no excuse to not try research anyway! Some people will put indie works on a pedestal, for example, and expect primo perfect writing or they get even more scrutinized than the cis white guy writing popular show #13021. However, that is on them - if you know you're not overstepping, if you did your research, if you're sure that you can have a bit of a say in the matter even if to make more readers aware of a subject to begin with, don't let those people stop you then.
(JK Rowling is a TERF and we should move past her works though)
I don't censor anything I do because it's just frustrating keeping track of things you can and can't do.
Of course, if it is a topic that can be controversial, I still have the option not to talk about it. Avoiding certain things can save so much brain cells.
About censorship itself, that's how I interpret it:
Censorship is when someone slams a big heavy bag of coins into your nutsack.
Now, self-censorship would be if you slammed a big heavy bag of coins into your nutsack.
You wouldn't want to do that. Right?
(If you still say yes: Aren't you a little kinky fellow.)
I am very anti-censorship, but I have done some self-censorship within certain parameters. The parameter being that it must be available uncensored somewhere. So for my comic if a character is nude for example, on sites where it's free-to-read, I will censor it and then make the uncensored version available on Patreon. So this helps keep inline with the host platform's rules and allows the uncensored version to be rewards for my patrons.
I have also done a very little of toning things down a bit in my comic. But I consider it very minor stuff.
Was this really needed? You could have said "the new popular series on tv." Instead you come off as very bias. Everyone gets scrutinized in movies/TV. It's not a identity thing so don't make it one.
But see, how much research is enough? How do you know you're not overstepping until you've already posted the work and someone tells you that you were? What qualifies as 'having a bit of a say in the matter'? Is an agender person more qualified to write in-depth trans representation than cis people? (As an agender person, I feel like I understand trans people even less than your average cis person, because cis people at least have a gender identity and know what it's like to be misgendered, for example.)
Some people are always going to be paranoid about whether its 'enough', and saying "oh don't worry, you're doing better than 'cis white guy writing popular show #13021'" doesn't help. That's why I'm so keen on proposing we don't draw a line at all between what should be said and what should not. People like me are always going to worry if we're on the wrong side of that line.
And I just don't think it's necessary, when the harms of saying something bad can be mitigated by a simple content warning (e.g. 'this work may contain misinformation on [this minority/this disability/this IRL heated subject]. Read it with a grain of salt).
Imagine if works of propaganda have to be prefaced with (warning: this is a propaganda piece). I can't imagine it would make for very effective propaganda after that.
I wouldn't call choosing not to write something you don't know enough about censorship. I'd call that being self aware.
I think censorship is saying you can't, or you aren't allowed to write something because you think other people don't want you to.
I think choosing not to write something when you could (not because someone or something says you shouldn't or cant but because you yourself are simply deciding you feel its best not to ) is just thoughtful conscious tactful writing.
Every instance in which a person chooses not to write something isn't censorship.
Well or you can just ask other people for help. If you don't know if something is appropriate or not, then take the effort to reach out to other people. You don't really want to end up like Disney's Song of the South where Walt Disney thought he was making a positive film for black people. Or Music who didn't even take the effort to talk to autistic people for their film about autism. Part of it is ego and willing to get off the high horse and listen to other people.
Another famous example is the Simpsons was almost going to have Homer call a gay man the f-slur but removed it after a gay man read over their script. The writers didn't know that word was seen as being really offensive and honestly I think removing it was a good choice.
I don´t agree on that the best way to self-censor is to research but that depends on what kind of story you
are writing. When you write about science you have to do research.
For all other stories I want to hear the creators point of view without the creator doing research before
he writes it to find out if he they have to self censor what they wrote.
I don´t know what the cis-white guy thing has to do in this topic
I've been watching this thread from afar just but with regards to this point specifically i think it can tie in when you take into account the amount of self censorship an individual puts into a work especially with regards to representations or inclusion of certain things
people from marginalized backgrounds and especially those with intesectional identities i think tend to be more inclined towards self censorship given the way they're likely used to seeing themselves negatively represented in a body of work in one form or another whether it's blatant misinformation, negative stereotyping, harmful bigoted opinions and so on. So in that regard theirs much more inclination to take care in what's put out and how things are phrased, formatted, etc
meanwhile there are those outside those labels (cishet white men as was mentioned) who at least from an outsider point of view but still through observation of the way things are handled in the things they produce tend to reflect a lot less of this kind of care. I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN EVERY CISHET WHITE MALE DOES THIS or that such generalization is fair but you can absolutely spot those who didn't bother to do their research or simply didn't care to and interviews sometimes are really good for exposing these mindsets; hence i imagine the mention of ego as those kinds of folks may see themselves as being above a need to do any kind of research because it's their "grand creative imagination" and doing so would "hinder them" or something of the like
also going back there's a different kind of standards that marginalized folks are held to as opposed to non marginalized folks where there's an expectation (or it's unsurprising) for cis white dudes to bastardize cultures or misrepresent identities and so on but there's a much higher expectation and trust for the rest because obviously they should care being one who falls within xyz demographic. which isn't to say folks from marginalized identities don't make fuck ups of their own but the bar is set much higher i think hence why there's a stronger sense of this self imposed need for self censorship otherwise you're "failing" these people
personally i think everyone should be held to a certain standard when it comes to what they put in their work and if they insist on a certain thing then warn folks ahead of time so they can avoid whatever material or content that they would find distasteful. like on the barest most basic level it's common decency to not be a piece of shit but that doesn't mean people wont go out and be one anyways. so when you're someone looking to have a large platform (or if you have one already) there's also a level of responsibility there when it comes to what you put out because you've got a reputation and you have influence so dragging back the trans topic one more time when jkr says things that can get trans people killed it's a problem hence the backlash and a need for self censorship. (is she gonna do it probably not but the point still stands per that example)
i think what someone else said about things like self awareness and self censorship being a layered issue is why there's this VAST array of replies covering a broad range of topics because there's the very bare minimum of choosing whether or not to say something versus a more long term of putting something in a piece of media that will continue to live on in whatever place, be consumed by others and have some form of impact based on the content and what decisions the creator behind it made
like even the mention of propaganda technically applies because yeah it had/has intents but that's the thing. self censorship is also tied to intent "what do you intend to say, whats your point, what do you mean by xyz" because intent, research and internal though is what drives decision making alongside like 50billion other things but you get my point)
[this also dragged on way longer than i intended and i only care so much for discussion on this platform because the way some folks here react or respond to things but that's as best as i can phrase my thoughts for right now :/]
[[also this is in no way some targeted response but just addressing points i feel are relevant to the topic and the whole "what do cis white dudes or race/sexuality/gender have to do with anything" replies because imo it does tie in it's just one of those fuzzy points in the broader topic that this happens to be]]
"personally i think everyone should be held to a certain standard when it comes to what they put in their work and if they insist on a certain thing then warn folks ahead of time so they can avoid whatever material or content that they would find distasteful"
can you please give an example (beside the obvious ones which are "may contain violence, swear words, erotic content) so I can understand?
Just a reminder, this is the topic´s question:
"do YOU self censor your own work and then not write it even if you would want to?"
for this i'd say maybe certain more polarized views/opinions/beliefs and the like so if someone with more right extremist opinions happened to have a body of work that either directly included those things or even vaguely alluded to them i'd prefer if there were forwewarning to them being in there
if we're to tie it to the original topic of "do you self censor" my example would be how i'd wanted to work on a story with a more modern/urban setting which would include folks from a variety of cultural/racial backgrounds and gender identities/sexualities (living in a US like setting) but i'd put the project aside [which i guess in a way counts as self censoring] as i didn't feel i'd had enough information or insight into how to go about properly portraying these characters. sure i've got the context of my own identity and i live in a very big city so i'm exposed to a lot of diversity both in a racial context as well as in terms of gender identity or sexuality as well as having net access but because at that time i didn't know what felt like the best starting point for research for that project and how to approach it i shelved it for when i'm more confident in my ability to do these characters and their story justice rather than just relying on known stereotypes that could lead to bad rep not based on other standards or potential response but as a self conscious decision to idk...do the right thing?
that's like even with projects i'm working on now: i have plus sized characters i wish to include but intend to do as much work as possible to make sure that i'm not falling on any of the overly regurgitated fatphobic stereotypes or redundant cliches often seen in different bodies of work, I'm creating fictional cultures which may take some inspiration from existing cultures but i want to ensure that i do so in a way that doesn't use harmful rhetoric or misinformation that's spread about them.
that's like i'm aware that there's no such thing as a perfect body of work there's no guarantee that i wont screw something up but if i can acknowledge my intent (which is proper rep in stories i'm creating so that it's not only genuine for my story but doesn't disrespect or misrepresent folks who very well could end up in my pool of readers) then i can make progress in doing that research that everyone seems so intimidated or offended by because no you'll never really know how much is enough but that's the point of doing as much as you can and getting feedback from relevant parties and not just your fellow writing buddies who're more likely to tell you to "write whatever you want" instead of practicing a bit of mindful self education
that and like in a general i don't think anyone is necessarily obligated to self-censor but i think depending on specific context it may be the better thing to do (because sure for years we heard about sticks and stones but words do hurt and have impact regardless of how little they might seem in a given moment)