Tone Policing vs Appeal to Emotion

I read a cartoon about tone policing recently and it struck me that this concept is at odds with the appeal to emotion fallacy. According to the cartoon, tone policing occurs when I ask someone to distance themselves from their emotions before I am willing to listen to their argument. The cartoon says this is wrong and that a person's anger, sadness, fear, etc are central to the issue. I get the impression this means the more angry a person is about an issue then the more that issue is wrong.

I feel that the concept of tone policing is an attempt to undermine one of the most important informal logical rules, that reason is more important than emotion in settling difficult problems. If tone policing is a reasonable idea then it is wrong for me to ask a person to stop screaming their opinions at me in order to have a civilized conversation.

Me: Let's look at this problem rationally. Try to remove your anger about the issue.
Person I hope I never get into an argument with: No thats tone policing...

Link to Cartoon
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/?fbclid=IwAR0oYYWtpq9Ru5Bg4AEwVU61fvev4JlBrZXlzG0o2t7TFYcT8bVnkh_4Shg

First the valid point that cartoon makes: emotions and experiences are very important and should not be ignored. Very few people have the ability to express strongly-held ideas, thoughts, and beliefs free from emotion (i.e. tone) and asking them to do so is frustrating to them. Now for the problems...

Tone Policing Is Just Another Way to Protect Privilege

It could be, just like choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate is just another way to express racism. Or sometimes, you just feel like eating vanilla.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Does displaying anger/strong emotion distract from the issue?

If the "issue" is one where facts and reality matter, then YES. There is no question that emotion interferes with the reasoning process. This is why the heuristic that people who display strong emotions are less likely to be thinking reasonably and, less likely to have their facts straight is a reasonable one. But as we know, most people are not interested in facts and reason, and strong emotion is more persuasive to them. This is why a handful of moms parading their children who are on the autistic spectrum around claiming vaccines made them this way is more convincing to many people than decades of research by the world's top scientists as well as formal statements by virtually all medical and health organizations. No matter how emotional one might be, it does not change the facts.

If the "issue" is the subjective feelings of the individual, then NO. If a person is sharing a subjective experience then their emotions are important.

"Tone Policing"

The term "tone policing" has been around for a long time and is a legitimate fallacy (I need to add it to this site!). As Wiki defines it...

Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.

Everyday Feminism is attempting to redefine the term to support their ideological agenda. It has nothing to do with minorities, the oppressed, or feminism. It can certainly be used against these groups, but it can be used fallaciously BY these groups as well.

Right off the bat this cartoon got it wrong... the argument made by Person 1 about the 1200 Aboriginal women being murdered was responded to with complete agreement . Person 2 made no attempt to "detract from the validity of a statement." The suggestion to tone down the rhetoric, "e.g., 'our bullshit government'" was most likely an attempt to help the arguer appear more credible - NOT to shut down the argument.

Strong emotions are the fuel behind many of our most problematic cognitive biases, which are responsible for us ignoring facts and distorting reality. At the same time passion is a powerful force for change. The key is to develop the passion as a result of the facts and not start with an impassioned opinion based on subjective experience and cherry pick the facts that support your view.

I've often found that the most cliché or weakest arguments (especially those made by religious fundamentalists) begin initially by attacking the tone, terseness, or sarcasm of the responder. A case in point is the constant barrage of nauseatingly rote complaints made against the supremely genteel, compassionate, yet sometimes surly Richard Dawkins; or even the less refined, but equally blunt and straight forward retorts of the renowned, if not, controversial physicist, Lawrence Krauss.

Indeed, very often the first line of attack from the logically challenged or religious fanatic is to critique the style of the opponent over the substance of his or her argument - as if the style itself undermines the validity of the argument rather than the facts or science behind it.

Of course, any time a claimant diverts from the subject by attacking the arguer's style or character is either an ad hominem, Strawman or garishly Red Herring tactic that leads away from the truth of the matter rather than toward it - and thus by its very definition is a distraction or logical fallacy.

"the more angry a person is about an issue then the more that issue is wrong"

This is not at all what tone policing is about. Tone policing is a concept that draws attention to the positions of privilege held by people who are discussing an issue. It just means that context is extremely relevant to any political discussion.

As a white man, there are many issues that you are able to consider and discuss as merely an intellectual exercise, because you are privileged from ever being personally affected by those issues. If you are discussing an issue with a person whose fundamental human dignity is at stake, it would not be appropriate for you to set the terms on how that issue should be discussed.

If you were talking about abortion with a woman, criminal justice with a person of color, gender identity with someone who is queer, or border policy with an immigrant, you would be entering the conversation from a position of privilege. Because you personally are not marginalized by policies relating to these issue, your privilege blinds you from being able to see the multitude of ways in which other people are affected by that policy. Presenting your own opinion on the issue as if it has equal weight to the experience of someone who is personally affected only serves to reinforce your relative positions of privilege and marginalization.

If someone accuses you of "tone policing" that would be an appropriate time to consider how you own position of privilege affects your perspective on an issue, and an appropriate time to speak less and listen more.

It depends on the venue.

If it's a formal debate it is proper to monitor (police) the tone of an argument or discussion between the adversaries. Typically, it is the moderator's responsibility to moderate, but if they fail, then, yes, it is up to the debaters to make the charge.

Just watch the masterful way Sam Harris calls upon the borderline fanatical Deepak Chopra to "dial it down".

https://youtu.be/hU6TkfCGlX8<>}https://youtu.be/hU6TkfCGlX8<><>

My personal experience is the more an argument requires "emotion" or ad baculum fallacy, the less control the arguer has over the rationale of their claim. At that point the more rational argument wins automatically.

Here's a wonderful example of the breakdown of a debate between the estimable William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal. It's a little long, but well worth it.

By the way, the formidable WFB knew he lost the debate the second he lost it, and never ever lived it down for the rest of his life.

Vidal vs Buckley - Crypto-Nazi Debate (Best Quality) https://youtu.be/ZY_nq4tfi24 via @YouTube<>