| abstract
| - 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. The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issues raised. Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down. Tone arguments are also often entwined with privilege, especially when a member of a oppressor group (oftentimes in a position of power) abuses said power to shut down concerns raised by a marginalized group, irrespective of whether the concerns are valid through invoking the tone argument. This is especially true when the marginalized is a newcomer to the discussion and is afterward ostracized by the groupthink when their tone differs from those preferred by the group. The tone argument is also used as a silencing tactic, where someone invariably becomes angry due to their opponent (often in a position of power) dismissed or ignores their repeated requests or well-reasoned arguments, and said anger is then used to justify removing them from the discussion, thereby silencing them. Occasionally, a reverse tone argument is seen. For instance, in one comment on the Mark Shuttleworth at Linuxcon incident, a commenter named Craig complimented(?) Skud saying: This letter is very well written, non-aggressive, and thoughtful – I couldn’t agree more. I’m glad you didn’t go off on hate filled attack like has been seen lately against RMS for many reasons. In doing so, he compared this particular statement with a supposed Angry feminist mob baying for Richard Stallman's blood in relation to the EMACS virgins joke incident, although any such mob was a Straw-feminist in the first place. Writing principally about racism, Patricia Williams characterized what we call the tone argument as "a laissez-faire response that privatizes the self in order to remain unassailably justified in any and all activities", imagining a dialogue between Cain and Abel: Cain: Abel's part of town is rough turf. Abel: It upsets me when you say that; you have never been to my part of town. As a matter of fact, my part of town is a leading supplier of milk and honey. Cain: The news that I'm upsetting you is too upsetting for me to handle. You were wrong to tell me of your upset because now I'm terribly upset. Abel: I felt threatened first. Listen to me. Take your distress as a measure of my own and empathize with it. Don't ask me to recant and apologize in order to carry this conversation further. (Patricia Williams, "Teleology on the Rocks" in The Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991))
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)