The Fashion for Self-Censorship

There are things that now seem impossible to say without a prologue, three clarifications and a certificate proving one’s ideological innocence. Say that immigration creates problems of coexistence, and someone may call you racist. Say that most immigrants came to work and deserve a dignified life, and someone else may accuse you of naivety or wokeness.

The same trap surrounds other debates. Talking about insecurity can make a person appear far-right, while warning that exaggerated fear is also a form of political messaging can lead to accusations of sympathy for criminals. It seems impossible to defend Israel’s right to exist and denounce the genocide in Gaza in the same sentence. Condemning Hamas requires an immediate disclaimer, while mourning Palestinian deaths can prompt someone to portray you as a Hamas spokesperson.

The article extends this logic to Catalonia. Saying that Catalonia has the right to decide its future can make someone an enemy of Spain. Feeling both Catalan and Spanish can draw demands from either side to choose one identity. Above all, the article says, changing one’s mind has become unacceptable. A statement made 10 years ago remains archived as a lifelong conviction. Social media does not recognize a right to evolve. It preserves screenshots.

As a result, people speak nervously, surrounding each idea with explanations, parentheses and apologies. Before expressing a doubt, they clarify who they are, where they stand and whom they did not vote for, in case someone places them in a camp where they do not belong. The article argues that fear has handed entire words and debates to the intolerant. Silence never leaves an empty space, it is eventually occupied by those without doubts, scruples or nuance. Democracy begins to weaken, it concludes, when having doubts is treated as betrayal.