Have you heard of "tone policing"?

Post Reply New Topic

A few days ago, I had a serious conversation with my roommate because of the noise after lights out, during which he kept saying that my tone made him uncomfortable. I hardly communicate with him on weekdays, so this made me confused. Perhaps this is an example of “tone policing.”

Yes that goes to show how unfairly labelling a thing can colour it wrong and mislead people who don't think carefully about what they're being told. I think these buzzwords need taking with a pinch of salt or the truth won't come out. "Gaslighting" and "bullying" are often bandied about without much care. "Empowerment" is often nothing of the kind. "Giving 110%" is impossible, but somehow it reaches people in a way that "doing your best" doesn't. There are probably better examples.

As for "tone policing," it's hard to judge in cases where the "tone" is borderline and one person doesn't mind it and another does. I've no problem with somebody getting angry and raising their voice a bit, but they need to direct it at the situation and not at me. If they think I've done something wrong they can break it to me gently. If they don't agree with me they can simply offer their take, own it as that, and we can agree to differ if it can't be resolved. When they just get smug, snarky or otherwise disrespectful I try to cut them a bit of slack for a while, but if it goes on even after I've replied to them in a gentler tone than they deserve, it gets to be low-level bullying and I have to do something different, such as calling them out. It's wrong to accuse me of tone policing for that.

But of course none of that is to say that tone policing is never used to shut innocent people down. It's important to examine each case on its own merits.

I personally don't go for capitalising. Trump does it for a start. And it looks like shouting or drunkenness. I think it's often used to try and make an idea look more important than it is. It's like trying to get real information from a sharp salesman - it might be there somewhere, but the presentation gets in the way. Let the idea stand or fall on its own merits. But that's just my view.

Yes, I would agree with that, and I think most people do so. Different people will have different ideas about each case though. Some people will think that a person went too far while others will think that it was perfectly understandable all things considered.

When a person doesn’t respond to excellent points an individual has raised and complains about mild snarkiness or the use of emoticons instead, it seems like tone policing to me although others might disagree with that assessment. It depends on the subject matter too. For instance, if the topic is related to sexual abuse, things might get more heated if it seems like members are being dismissive, victim-blaming, or making the discussion more about them. It’s not an abstract, theoretical topic to some like it might be to others.

Obviously, abusive behavior or patterns of behavior that occur on a regular basis and in multiple threads should be called out and/or reported. I’m not referring to anything extreme though.

Sexual politics, especially abuse issues, can be incredibly hard to discuss without anger derailing the whole thing. So then we have a big problem - these things have to be talked about, but whenever we try, we get angry and make things worse. Even NTs can't get it right, so what chance do we have with a disability characterised by social impairments?

I think if it's ever going to work, there has to be a high standard of courtesy all round. Not shutting people down for simply being a tad angry, but not letting it degenerate into slighting either. But it's like walking on eggshells. It's a shame threads have to get locked for snarkiness. In industrial relations, when in the same way something very thorny has to be talked about and talks break down, they sometimes have a cooling-off period. So maybe there's a forum somewhere in which a topic that's gone bad can be paused for a while instead of locking it.

When talking about sexual abuse, people need to be able to engage in the topic without victim blaming or dismissive or otherwise hurtful commentary. Most often, folks try to inform individuals who engage in those behaviors, and when no progress is made, frustration or simply trying a different tactic may be the result. Either way, tone is NOT the problem.

When the topic is explained over and over again and people keep on getting off-track because they’re butt-hurt by someone’s supposed tone among other things, it's an illustration of how the valid fears of women and sexual assault as a serious societal issue are not taken seriously enough. That is the problem and that is at the heart of the matter.

I agree with that.


Sometimes it isn't a problem. I think it depends on the scenario and on the individual's experience of it. In borderline cases, nobody can correctly claim to be right in absolute terms, they can only describe how it felt to them. With strongly partisan issues, the aggressive one is less likely to be noticed by the side they appear to be supporting, because the aggression is directed at their potential opponents. Conversely, the anger it generates in those it targets is intensified and is perceived as stronger than it would look to a fly on the wall. So one hostile person can infect the whole group with acrimony. At least, that's how it looks to me in hindsight, and that was my experience of the scenario I was engulfed in. No doubt I'm an unusually strong believer in peaceful discussion, but my feelings are valid and so "tone" is a problem, from my perspective.

Imagine how survivors must feel after reading victim-blamey, dismissive posts. Imagine how triggering that might be to some folks who have PTSD from being sexually abused.

People can believe in peaceful discussion, but the reality is that there are a lot of survivors here. Once again, many seemed more concerned about how they were/would be perceived than the bigger issue and what survivors shared which is an ongoing problem whenever this topic comes up. People even implied what women should think. Sometimes members share their experiences with abuse and people claim they are misandrist even when they state repeatedly that it’s not all men.

It’s not like just any other topic that one might discuss and debate in PPR as some seem to think. It’s a triggering topic. Some members are more aware of issues related to sexual abuse than others. All opinions aren’t created equal. Stating a bad opinion can cause a lot of harm here. It’s not about taking sides as one might in a political debate. If people want to make those threads friendlier to actual survivors, engaging with the topic in a considerate way is important instead of persisting with victim-blamey rhetoric after someone with more knowledge on the topic sets you straight. If people persist with harmful BS, a little snark seems pretty insignificant in comparison and, perhaps, even warranted.

It's one thing to have "differing opinions" when it comes to "chocco vs vanilla" or "B5 vs DS9" - but many many things aren't merely harmless opinions that are merely different from other opinions.

Something like assault tends to be overwhelmingly thought of as bad. Being pro-assault vs anti assault is not the same thing as "chocco vs vanilla".

Assault - among many other experiences - is traumatic, and expecting people to talk about assault in any form, while not expecting them to have a strong reaction to the topic, seems more than a little tone deaf.

Sometimes tone policing has a place, like in a courtroom, or at an elementary school. Even freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say literally whatever you want without any consequences of any sort.

Many other times, tone policing is merely a means to control others in some fashion. Historically, tone policing was used by those in power to control the narrative when those being subjugated by them tried to push back. A relevant example would be women who got sick of being mistreated and ignored by men who calmly and rationally systematically mistreated them, getting labeled as hysterical and irrational for deciding they're not gonna take it anymore.

It has been my experience that when someone actually cares about the message, despite concerns about the tone, they will address both the message and the tone. But when someone only focuses on the tone, and expects the tone to change before the message will even be acknowledged, they don't actually care about the message, and are typically merely trying to water it down into something they can more easily ignore - making sure it is only discussed in ways that don't make it sound like a big deal.

Very. Probably the most triggering one I've ever seen. Needs excellent people skills to discuss it without doing more harm than good. Those are very rare. I think everybody made mistakes, self included. People's experiences in such debates are very different.

I certainly don’t think that “everybody made mistakes,” not that writing or argumentation is ever going to be flawless. Still, I disagree with what I think you are getting at although it’s a pleasant stance to take because, if everyone is wrong, one feels less culpable or called-out.

I can’t find fault with a couple of posters who engaged in that thread. bee33 is one of them.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

Yes I don't benefit much from trigger warnings. Sarcasm "warnings" only seem to happen as clarification, to ensure people don't take the statements literally when the opposite is meant. Personal slight warnings never seem to happen, presumably because the author doesn't know how cruel they're being, or they just want to upset somebody. Sometimes opinions are owned as opinions, and I think that can often be helpful.

There's a good plugin that allows members to automatically block posts from individuals who are a vexation to them. I suppose that could be described as a trigger warning because what you see is their name in a box, and if you're in the right mood to risk their vexatious style you can click it to reveal the contents. I've got that installed and am currently finding it quite useful.

I'm glad to hear you're not trying to pick on me. I'd been thinking you were. I get that I unwittingly triggered something bad, and I'm sorry if I did. The triggery thread I have in mind was posted in Random Discussion, and its title was quite new to me, so it took me a while to figure out that it was such a heavy matter being discussed there. There would have been better places for it, such as Adult Autism Issues, and I see that the OP vanished immediately after starting it. Don't know whether to be suspicious about that or not. All in all I think there's been a lot of misunderstandings.

I'm sorry I didn't mention the sympathy I have for your cause. Nobody asked me about that or I would have done. Somebody I care about very deeply indeed had a tragic experience of exactly the same issue, and still has nightmares several decades after, therapy has achieved nothing.

Thanks to the OP of this thread (about tone policing) for bearing with me here. A lot of people must be wondering WTF I've been talking about. It's only related to the topic by the skin of its teeth, but it felt important and I saw no other way.

People police my tone all the time especially when I point out when they are wrong about something.