“Why are you so negative? You nitpick everything!” Too often than not, when you try to express your grief and frustration, people might say these to you. You might assume and ask yourself, “Was my anger and strong emotions really unsolicited? Was I wrong?” It’s another type of gaslighting when all you did was express your concern about a certain (political) issue and get thought of doing something bad, I should say.
This social reality has a name actually--tone policing! Tone policing, or sometimes called tone trolling, tone argument, or tone fallacy, is a type of ad hominem attacks used to criticize a person for expressing their emotions. Tone policing detracts from the validity of the statement by attacking the tone of the speaker rather than referring to the message itself. It is also a diversionary tactic used especially by those in the “privilege ladder”, or those holding positions of power, wealth, and prestige. In this sense, tone policing may be deliberate.
What does it sound like?
Tone policing can be observed in different manners. It is present when someone tells you:
“I wish you would say that in a nicer way.”
“Chill! You don’t need to get so angry.”
“You could have expressed your stance better if you don’t use that aggressive tone.”
“I would have tried to understand you better if we could discuss this like adults.”
“Try to remove your anger from the issue.”
What is wrong with tone policing?
Nowadays, tone policing is rife especially in spheres of political conversations. Even with friends, tone policing can occur. But tone policing can perpetuate unconscious bias against the underrepresented populations, especially those who would ask for improvements in their quality of life or even for their rights to be observed. Tone policing is also an oppression tactic because it keeps issues of oppression are gatekeeped and silenced. As privileged people may not understand the experiences of those who are not in the same status, it allows privileged people to define terms of conversation about oppression on their own, which may lead to forgetting other important details.
Tone policing also suggests that the only productive conversation is a calm conversation. What happens to activists who shout on the streets to protest the unjust sensibilities of a government, for example? It also suggests that conversations must drive towards solutions, and that emotionality is a hindrance towards solution-finding.
What should change?
As with many other issues, the feelings and opinions of those oppressed are valid. The people fighting for the oppressed are also valid. So no one has the right to silence such feelings and opinions by policing their tones. It would just create more divisive tendencies. It should be noted that tone policing can help us forget the important issues that need to be consistently conversed with in order to effect change.
Read more:
Comments