There is a big difference between using an extensive vocabulary and being condescending. Frankly, I don't even bother with those types of posts because I can tell where it's coming from and I refuse to feed it power.

Is that silencing me? Perhaps. But at the same time it saves me the aggravation of being further annoyed by posts that make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER and riddled with big, fancy schmancy words with complex grammatical sentences.

Someone earlier said it right - just because you SOUND smart, doesn't necessarily mean you are.

Simple is always best.

TD, these two sentences resonated so deeply with me right now that it isnt funny.

I also want to add that a person who does this is more often than not speaking from a place of self-negativity. To put energy into trying to hurt/damage/inflict pain on another person by "destroying" their reputation or airing their dirty laundry that was told to them in the privacy of a friendship is a gross display of the WORST kind of ethical lacking in a human being.

I have also always been of the opinion that it says MUCH more about the person airing the laundry or "destroying the reputation" than it does about the person that its being done to.

It, unfortunately, still hurts the person its being done to, no matter how sad/angry/nasty the person who is doing it appears to be to others.

I have much MUCH more to say here but I'll leave it for now.

Thanks, but I get that part, I just can't make sense of the system as a whole. How does one accumulate rep 'power'? Do some folks have more rep power than others? Is your rep worth more than my rep (God forbid that anyone should give better rep than me:)) And what about the negative and neutral rep that's mentioned in the FAQ. Where is it? Why don't I see it? I HAVE TO KNOW!!! LOL, because yes, at the end of the day, it IS all about me. IT IS!!!

they certainly don't. which makes life so much easier.

I tend to see a post as either constructive, deconstructive, or both.
If I start to perceive a post- or poster- as being purely deconstructive I gloss over their posts or completely ignore them.

To me, a deconstuctive poster seldom adds to a conversation and lends a chilling effect to potential contributors who don't have the time or inclination to respond to the deconstruction of their post, and the need to reconstruct it over and over again until it is acceptable or understood by the deconstructer.

Instead of saying to themselves "OK, parts of the language in this post are imprecise or problematic, but I get the jist of the writer's intentions", a deconstructer will pick apart the post, bit by bit, line by line, often with copious usage of the multiquote feature, and demand- or feel entitled to- a reconstruction by the original poster. A deconstructer does not create their own post or offer anything constructive to a conversation. They are more like critics who dismantle the creations of others without themselves creating anything. This urge to deconstruction seems especially pervasive in academia, and sometimes in online forums.

I feel sorry for people who are unable to contribute anything but deconstruction to a conversation, but that doesn't make me obligated to respond to them or even read them.

Another silencing tactic on internet forums is the "drive-by downer" post, which is the forum equivalent of flashing the middle finger at another driver in traffic. An example would be posting something like ":|:|:|". Some posters seem to especially enjoy stepping into highly charged and important conversations to dump their snippy little bad vibe. This is another type of unconstructive (and lazy) type of posting that can be silencing in the same way that saying "go fuck yourself" can put a chill on a conversation.

Being silenced does not require consent. Screaming over someone whenever they attempt to speak, for example will effectively silence a speaker regardless of their consent.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdlcnK_MI4"]YouTube- Unruly Republicans Disrupt Health Care Debate[/ame]

Another way to accomplish this on an internet forum in a much more passive-aggressive way is to "spam" a thread with so many off-topic posts that the real conversation is buried or lost in the deluge.

One could even bump a bunch of other threads in order to remove a disliked conversation off the front page, or off the recent posts list in an attempt to bury it.

Women have historically been silenced by being called "too angry", "victims", "hysterical", "shrill", "bitchy", and all the other ways in which behaviors which are acceptable and respected from males are marginalized when exhibited by females.

I'm sure there are a million more ways to silence people.

What about reporting posts that the reader does not like or agree with?
If one group of people never reports posts, and another group frquently does, which group will be more silenced through moderation?

The principle that people cannot be silenced without their consent is not accurate in my understanding of group dynamics and human history (such as it is).

What are the solutions? If you can figure that out it would transform humanity. The ones that come to mind are war and separatism.

Great post Cyclopea!

It made me think of an example where I felt silenced, but decided to rise above and post anyway.

On another website someone started a very emotionally charged thread about parental abuse of a specific kind.

Someone came in and said parents do the best they can and people needed to just get over it and stop whining. :sigh:

Being a survivor myself, I immediately felt like maybe I needed to not speak out, maybe I needed to suck all my pain down and just deal. Maybe I deserved the abuse? maybe I am a whiner? Then, after I talked myself off the ledge, I decided that it is important for us to speak out because if it helps just one person to not feel so alone, it's worth putting myself out there....not to mention how much it helps to get things out.

So I felt silenced, but I spoke my truth anyway.

Gossip is definitely silencing, I think, because it takes the core of our justice system away. Innocent until proven guilty. It's like when you hear a song and then you hear another version of that same song. A study done long ago (that I have no way of digging up now so you all are just going to have to believe me in that it was done and I read up on it) came to the conclusion in this situation (or one mirroring the concept) that you would prefer the first version of the song you heard. I have noticed with myself that this is true with movies as well. My point? We tend to believe what we hear/see/learn first. Prime example? Marketing and advertising.

So, if I say something about person X to person Y, then person X is going to tend to believe me over person Y. Of course, there are variations. If persons X and Y had been best friends for 12 years previously, then neither would probably believe me. However, here, many of us are isolated from the reality of others. What we read and how we feel when we read it are our truths.

Bit mentioned something along that line that I agree with.

I find seeing someone being told to knock it off silencing. :seconddoh: :whine:

KIDDING!!! :nyahnyah:

I have nothing but :awww: for you, missy miss.

I think you are correct in how the rep system works, from what I've noticed, as well as NeedtoKnowititis.

What about freedom of speech? Don't we have a right to say what we feel, even if it offends others? Without the fear of being negatively repped, etc?

I honestly think that freedom of speech no longer exists, which therefore means people in this world are being silenced

That is still being silenced, which is my whole point, don't tell someone they can or can't say or do as they please and then come around with all this justifications and stipulations. Justifications and stipulations do not set well with me by any means.

not asking for a free pass, just the fact that a person should be able to say or do what they want without the fear of being banned, repped negatively, etc.

But what I do have a problem with is someone trying to silence me by say rules, etc.

Hmmm you know you might be right anarchy might be a better choice of words and to what I seek.

which is basically an anarchy which is null of any goverment or ruler, etc!!!