Gladly. The response pretends to address the argument, but instead relies on another pejorative label rather than substantive commentary. It also tries to smear the original poster with an association to anti-feminist and anti-antiracist critics (while, I might add, conveniently recharacterizing those movements as merely calling for the use of “nice language”, and therefore apparently beyond criticism).
1. Tone policing is not a pejorative, it's just what they're doing. Saying "please sound nicer" IS tone-policing. If people don't like being told they're tone policing (lol), they should stop tone policing. Problem solved.
2. Association to racism and anti-feminism. Whether you choose to admit it or not, there IS a strong association between all of these. They didn't claim the original commentator was one, but they pointed out their argument is used by them, which is true.
And, the association is real and well understood. That doesn't mean it's a perfect association, like everyone who denies climate change hates women or something, but certainly the odds are higher. Because, generally, those beliefs stem from the same place. Conservative beliefs. Again, not all, but there ARE strings tying those together and they're not made up.
3. Lack of substantive commentary. Sorry, there isn't any to be provided. "Climate denier sounds bad" isn't really an argument, you can't disprove that. They're just noting that bending over backwards is ONLY really awarded to the most privileged. Meaning, nobody asks a climate denier to "sound nicer" when talking about the government. Just like nobody asks a racist to sound nicer in their racism, but if you call out a racist you could very well be told to sound nicer as to not scare them off. As if they're on the cusp of realization (lol).
More disingenuousness (or, perhaps, just lack of careful reading?).
1. The term “tone policing” was used here as a pejorative, discussion-terminating label. The response tagged the OP with that label and then did nothing to explain why this arbitrary tag mattered. The clear purpose was to discredit via name-calling.
2. Any association you perceive to exist to feminism and antiracism is irrelevant to this discussion. And you’re doing it again, by the way - lumping everyone under a label of “conservative beliefs” which nobody asked for. (I don’t fit that label at all, yet I agree with the criticism in the original post.)
3. “There isn’t any [substantive commentary] to be provided” almost perfectly encapsulates what is so grating and deficient about the rhetorical style and worldview on display in the response. “My position is so obviously right and self-evident that anyone who could dare to disagree with me shall be named and shamed, and not engaged with.” Had you paid some attention to the overall context of this discussion, you might have noticed, e.g., that one criticism of the label is that it’s being used against people who don’t deny climate change. Let that sink in.
> The term “tone policing” was used here as a pejorative, discussion-terminating label
Again, not a label, but an action. And it's not up for debate whether this was tone policing or not - it was, by the definition of tone policing. You could argue that it "ended the conversation" but I disagree. If you, or others, crumble and fold at even the slightest hint of critic I don't know what to tell you. I don't have that problem so maybe it's something you're doing, I don't know.
> Any association... is irrelevant
I was explaining the context, because yes that does matter.
> I don't fit that label
As I've said, it's not all inclusive or perfect. I don't even know why I bother writing careful if people are just gonna ignore it and lie about my intentions anyway.
> My position is so obviously right and self-evident
Again, if you actually read what I wrote I never said, implied, or even kind of implied this. What I said is that there's no argument to be had because these are just emotions.
I can't tell someone they aren't sad, or tell someone they aren't happy. That's not an argument, that's nothing. If you say you're some emotion about something then that's that, that's not a position that can be argued for or against.
I would receive this comment much easier if you were more honest. It's frustrating when I go through the effort to plainly explain my position and then someone like you can roll in and just... make things up. If you want to argue with made-up arguments then talk to a chatbot. I'm a person, you can't force an argument I didn't make on me because I don't accept it.
Your arguments are shifting like sand, and I think it’s because you don’t really want to discuss the crux of the issues I’ve raised. To simplify, I’m harping on two themes:
1. I think that labeling and stigmatizing are deficient forms of discourse. I am using these words to refer to the practice of attaching a loaded, in-group buzzword (such as “tone policing” or “privileged”) to a person or their ideas in a disqualifying or self-executing manner. I am also referring to the practice of smearing a person or their ideas by linking them to some other stigmatized group or idea.
The reason I think these techniques are deficient is that they have no chance of persuading people who are not already “in the fold”, and thus are not efforts at dialogue at all. They also tend to inflame, which is unproductive.
2. You (the generic “you”) don’t get to place your own ideas or beliefs beyond question. You don’t get to presume the correctness of your beliefs, and then use the fact that your opponent disagrees with you as proof that they are disqualified or worthy of stigma. You may think this works in your own mind, but others who do not share your beliefs will not accept it. So when you (the individual “you”) say “it's not up for debate whether this was tone policing or not,” you are wrong because you don’t get to decide what is up for debate. (It’s actually kind of ironic that you said this, because I actually don’t think the original post was an example of so-called “tone policing”.)
I think these two rhetorical tactics, and what I perceive as a certain kind of smug arrogance underlying them, have been very damaging to public discourse in recent years. I would go so far as to say that they are largely responsible for the world having to suffer a first Trump administration, and now possibly a second.
