[Cyclopea]

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.