[EDIT: see the comment thread with Wei Dai, I don’t endorse the policing/argument terms as stated in this comment]
I agree that tone policing is not always bad. In particular, enforcement of norms that improve collective epistemology or protect people from violence is justified. And, tone can be epistemically misleading or (as you point out) constitute an implicit threat of violence. (Though, note that threats to people’s feelings are not necessarily threats of violence, and also that threats to reputation are not necessarily threats of violence; though, threats to lie about reputation-relevant information are concerning even when not violent). (Note also, different norms are appropriate for different spaces, it’s fine to have e.g. parties where people are supposed to validate each other’s feelings)
Tone arguments are bad because they claim to be “helping you get more people to listen to you” in a way that doesn’t take responsibility for, right then and there, not listening, in a way decision-theoretically correlated with the “other people”. (That isn’t what happened in the example you described)
I agree that people threatening mob violence is generally a bad thing in discourse. (Threats of mob violence aren’t arguments, they’re… threats) Such threats used in the place of arguments are a form of sophistry.
It’s confusing that “tone argument” (in the OP) links to a Wikipedia article on “tone policing”, if they’re not supposed to be the same thing.
What is the actual relationship between tone arguments and tone policing? In the OP you wrote:
A tone argument criticizes an argument not for being incorrect, but for having the wrong tone.
From this it seems that tone arguments is the subset of tone policing that is aimed at arguments (as opposed to other forms of speech). But couldn’t an argument constitute an implicit threat of violence, and therefore tone arguments could be good sometimes?
It seems like to address habryka’s criticism, you’re now redefining (or clarifying) “tone argument” to be a subset of the subset of tone policing that is aimed at arguments, namely where the aim of the policing is specifically claimed to be “helping you get more people to listen to you”. If that’s the case, it seems good to be explicit about the redefinition/clarification to avoid confusing people even further.
On reflection, I don’t think the online discourse makes the same distinction I made in the parent comment, and I also don’t think there is a clean distinction, so I retract the words for this distinction, although I think the distinction I pointed to is useful.
Tone arguments, in the broad sense, criticize arguments for their tone, not their content (as I wrote in the post).
More narrowly, tone arguments claim something like “more people would listen to you if you were more polite”. This is a subset of “broad” tone arguments.
The Geek Feminism article on tone arguments (which, I was reluctant to link to for obvious political reasons) says:
A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by concern trolls and sometimes as a derailment tactic, where it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone. This is also sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar, a particular variant of the tone argument. The tone argument also manifests itself where arguments produced in an angry tone are dismissed irrespective of the legitimacy of the argument; this is also known as tone policing.
Which is making something like the policing vs. argument distinction I made in the parent comment. But, the distinction isn’t made clear in this paragraph (and, certainly, tone arguments don’t only apply to feminism).
[EDIT: see the comment thread with Wei Dai, I don’t endorse the policing/argument terms as stated in this comment]
I agree that tone policing is not always bad. In particular, enforcement of norms that improve collective epistemology or protect people from violence is justified. And, tone can be epistemically misleading or (as you point out) constitute an implicit threat of violence. (Though, note that threats to people’s feelings are not necessarily threats of violence, and also that threats to reputation are not necessarily threats of violence; though, threats to lie about reputation-relevant information are concerning even when not violent). (Note also, different norms are appropriate for different spaces, it’s fine to have e.g. parties where people are supposed to validate each other’s feelings)
Tone arguments are bad because they claim to be “helping you get more people to listen to you” in a way that doesn’t take responsibility for, right then and there, not listening, in a way decision-theoretically correlated with the “other people”. (That isn’t what happened in the example you described)
I agree that people threatening mob violence is generally a bad thing in discourse. (Threats of mob violence aren’t arguments, they’re… threats) Such threats used in the place of arguments are a form of sophistry.
It’s confusing that “tone argument” (in the OP) links to a Wikipedia article on “tone policing”, if they’re not supposed to be the same thing.
What is the actual relationship between tone arguments and tone policing? In the OP you wrote:
From this it seems that tone arguments is the subset of tone policing that is aimed at arguments (as opposed to other forms of speech). But couldn’t an argument constitute an implicit threat of violence, and therefore tone arguments could be good sometimes?
It seems like to address habryka’s criticism, you’re now redefining (or clarifying) “tone argument” to be a subset of the subset of tone policing that is aimed at arguments, namely where the aim of the policing is specifically claimed to be “helping you get more people to listen to you”. If that’s the case, it seems good to be explicit about the redefinition/clarification to avoid confusing people even further.
On reflection, I don’t think the online discourse makes the same distinction I made in the parent comment, and I also don’t think there is a clean distinction, so I retract the words for this distinction, although I think the distinction I pointed to is useful.
Tone arguments, in the broad sense, criticize arguments for their tone, not their content (as I wrote in the post).
More narrowly, tone arguments claim something like “more people would listen to you if you were more polite”. This is a subset of “broad” tone arguments.
The Geek Feminism article on tone arguments (which, I was reluctant to link to for obvious political reasons) says:
Which is making something like the policing vs. argument distinction I made in the parent comment. But, the distinction isn’t made clear in this paragraph (and, certainly, tone arguments don’t only apply to feminism).