Negotiating Silence

[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.

[Apocalipstic]

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.

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.

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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

That RIGHT there is so important I wanted to blow it up to 7 Arial Black and make it red.

I resisted that urge.

But! That's what needs to happen.

If you (generic) feel silenced by me (specific), speak up anyway. Trust me when I say others will agree with you and support you.

Just trying to stay in the Me-Me zone!

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Ok. Now I'd like to add something else to the mix.

What about Silencing through gossip? Shunning. Labeling of a person as a slut, a stalker, a gold digger or obsessed?

This is something we can all combat. Sending a pm to another member devaluing another member? It has been my experience that nobody ever goes to the person being shredded and *asks* before perpetuationg the bullshit.

Apretty spoke of a true imbalance of power. I think there is an imbalance of power in these kinds of situations. The most painful thing for me has been seeing a person in authority (or perceived authority) rip a member in public. For speaking a truth. For having a dissenting opinion. It sets an ugly stage.

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.

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I get the sense that the more rep you give and get the stronger you rep power. I know that vbulletin comes with the negative and neutral rep features, but they are not implemented here. We've all seen what a disaster THAT can be. NeedToKnowitis is contagious. Knock it off!

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

KIDDING!!!

I have nothing but for you, missy miss.

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

[NotAnAverageGuy]

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

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by NotAnAverageGuy

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

Problem is, now quoting my wife's father, "Your rights end at the beginning of my nose". Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater may be your right, however if someone gets killed in the stampede, (your) guilt of manslaughter will be justified.
Our rights of speech must be tempered with good judgement of when and how to say something. That is imperative, in my judgement.

[NotAnAverageGuy]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Problem is, now quoting my wife's father, "Your rights end at the beginning of my nose". Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater may be your right, however if someone gets killed in the stampede, (your) guilt of manslaughter will be justified.
Our rights of speech must be tempered with good judgement of when and how to say something. That is imperative, in my judgement.

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.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by NotAnAverageGuy

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

Doesn't freedom of speech go both ways? I mean I hear people say they want freedom of speech, but then they want the buck to stop there. Just as anyone has the *freedom* to say hurtful, racist, misogynistic or prejudice things, others have the *freedom* to speak up about it.

*Freedom* does not = A free pass.

[NotAnAverageGuy]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Doesn't freedom of speech go both ways? I mean I hear people say they want freedom of speech, but then they want the buck to stop there. Just as anyone has the *freedom* to say hurtful, racist, misogynistic or prejudice things, others have the *freedom* to speak up about it.

*Freedom* does not = A free pass.

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.