"Wired" for Tone Arguments

[bentHnau]

For those who don't know, a "tone argument" is a claim that some statement(s) (usually a complaint) is invalid or to be dismissed because of the speaker's perceived emotional state or emotionally-laden language (such as swearing) used to express the statement. Basically, anyone who says, "you're too emotional for me to listen/care/agree with you" is guilty of a tone argument.

It's kind of a widely recognized fallacy and silencing tactic in the so-called social justice community (which basically consists of people from various kinds of minority groups discussing how they are oppressed and how to stop it), and people can't get away with it easily in such circles.

Yet, it is kind of an accepted NT characteristic (rather than a mere act) to become offended, dismiss, or ignore because "how you say it is as important as what you say," isn't it? I don't think that it is a widely recognized fallacy or silencing tactic in the wider autism community (online, at least). In my limited experience, "it sucks, but that's just how NTs are," is the way it's seen.

Do my observations seem accurate, and do you think that this should or can change? Or am I guilty of comparing two very different situations?

 

[DogwoodTree]

I'm a little confused...so your observation is that NTs, in general, tend to silence an opinion if it's expressed emotionally, but aspies don't seem to be so affected by the emotional layer of the statement and instead can focus on the underlying message better?

 

[Ereth]

I don't believe this is a characteristic (meaning a fixed trait). It's just a possible occurrence within any conversation between at least two people. Misunderstandings can and do happen.

It's kind of a widely recognized fallacy and silencing tactic in the so-called social justice community (which basically consists of people from various kinds of minority groups discussing how they are oppressed and how to stop it), and people can't get away with it easily in such circles.

Am I correct in assuming you mean that this happens to, and not just within, the "social justice community," as you call it? I've seen many rational arguments receive vicious and emotional responses from the people to whom they are addressed. (Given the connection the term "social justice warrior" has with the ugly and disgusting phenomenon known as Gamergate, I'm only using "social justice community" to reply specifically to your post; I would rather keep it out of my vocabulary.)

 

[bentHnau]

I'm a little confused...so your observation is that NTs, in general, tend to silence an opinion if it's expressed emotionally, but aspies don't seem to be so affected by the emotional layer of the statement and instead can focus on the underlying message better?

In discussions about the difficulties and differences of communication between autistics and NTs, I've noticed that people consider it to be an NT trait to care about the way people communicate (including how emotional the speaker is or seems to be) more than autistic people. I wanted to know if other people agreed that this is common.

I wasn't comparing to how aspies are affected by emotion in communication; I was comparing this supposed NT trait and the miscommunication to the behavior of people (in general) who dismiss and invalidate what others say because of how it is said.

 

[bentHnau]

I don't believe this is a characteristic (meaning a fixed trait). It's just a possible occurrence within any conversation between at least two people. Misunderstandings can and do happen.

I didn't mean that the misunderstandings were characteristic. I meant that NT people being more concerned with how things are said is the supposed characteristic which then potentially leads to misunderstandings.

Am I correct in assuming you mean that this happens to, and not just within, the "social justice community," as you call it?

I didn't mean either one of those. I mentioned the social justice community to describe the group of people whom I assume are best known for recognizing and repudiating tone arguments, not to describe the group of people who make tone arguments.

And I used the phrase "so-called social justice community" to suggest that I do not refer to them that way.

 

[Ereth]

Noted. I don't know if I misunderstood because I had a tiring day or what, but the wording in your post seemed a little unclear in parts. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I've never been a fan of "you're too emotional for me to talk to right now". I can understand that talking is better done when you're calmer, but somethings you can never discuss calmly and it should at least be said tactfully like "let's take a break and discuss this in a moment" if it does start heading towards a shouting match. I remember I had one butthole that liked to say that to me after he'd push my buttons for several hours. I started doing the same to him any time he showed an emotion I deemed unreasonable. Didn't make the situation better, but it kept me pretty amused.

 

[DogwoodTree]

I was comparing this supposed NT trait and the miscommunication to the behavior of people (in general) who dismiss and invalidate what others say because of how it is said.

My mom refuses to have a conversation with me if I express negative emotions at all...not yelling or cussing, just irritability, frustration, anger, even disagreement. In general, my family can't handle disagreements, even if I'm unemotional about it.

That said, I've been on the other side, too, where my step-dad would rage at us over nothing, and that kind of stuff shouldn't have to be tolerated at all, regardless of what message he's trying to communicate. I also have family members who get whiny or complain-y in order to try to make their point, and I don't particularly pay a lot of attention to what they're saying then, either. I think there's a legitimate point at which the other person's emotions are becoming abusive or manipulative, and anyone else in the room can and should leave the conversation until that person can get control of themselves.