The threat of violent sanctions for saying certain things has a wide and deep impact. Conscious self-censorship such as when peasants find it prudent not to complain about a corrupt cadre is but the tip of another iceberg. In many real situations, though, this is simply not the case. Yale political scientist James Scott has written eloquently of how those who fear violence are likely to speak and act as if they accepted the legitimacy of their masters. The threat of violence not only causes people to watch what they say, but makes them watch what they think.
Most people try hard to avoid dangerous desires.
There are many examples of how China's artificially constrained public debate reaches unreasonable conclusions. Selective reporting and limiting the range of interpretations presented in the mass media make it seem plausible that there is an international conspiracy aimed at preventing China from achieving wealth and power. Such distorted perceptions are used in turn to justify arguments for an aggressively nationalistic foreign policy. The imposition of silence also makes democracy appear a less reasonable alternative. One of the single most important silences imposed by the Chinese state is on the subject of its own oppression.