On tone policing

Most probably, the first time I came across tone policing was on a feminist blog. Tone policing is a social justice issue because it is one of the ways that privileged people exert control and establish superiority over others. If I'm screaming because I am in pain, and the person who is causing that pain reacts to my scream by saying that my screaming makes it impossible for them to listen to me (and therefore makes it impossible for them understand that they are causing me pain and that they need to change their behaviour), then we are in trouble. If we add to that that if I stop screaming in pain, try to breath in and out and calmly inform them that they are causing me pain, they will say that obviously I am not because I am not screaming it is completely maddening. So yes, I can understand where rejections to tone policing come from.

But here's the other side: when it comes to arguments and anger, I personally have a lot of trouble with people screaming at me. If I have done something wrong, and you tell me politely, I will listen to do and do all I can to rectify (if I believe I am in the wrong), or in the very least I will have a discussion with you about it and try to figure out what I can do to make things better. However, if you start screaming at me, I zone out. I can't deal. I feel I am being violently attacked and my reaction is to disappear. I hide within myself, stop listening and just want it to be over. On some occasions, out of pure fear/discomfort I might smile nervously or laugh. It's not that I find the person shouting funny, or the situation funny, it's that I have trouble processing it and my brain has trouble coping with it. No, I do not like being screamed at. And yes, I do understand that when you are angry and in the heat of the moment sometimes you can't help but screaming, and I am never going to criticise you for that. I just ask that in return you understand that if you scream at me I'm probably not going to listen. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't. The only way I can explain it is like this: when someone starts screaming at me, at a certain point I can only hear the volume. I have heightened awareness of how close they are to me and what gestures they are making, probably because I am afraid they might strike me), I feel unable to move, and unable to react a lot further than to nod or agree because I just want the situation to be over. At some point, I stop hearing them. I become more aware of my surroundings than of the person I am interacting with because it is making me so uncomfortable that I block them out. And more than anything, I try to efface myself, and hide, I usually hang my head. These reactions are mostly unconscious, and even worse, when I say something in this situation (for example, if I try to apologize) people tend to think I am not being genuine. They are right. I am not. Not because I think they're wrong, but because usually in this situation the only thing I want is for it to be over. I am not thinking about what I have done, or whether what you're saying is reasonable. I just want the aggression to stop.

So I have a dilemma. I am against tone policing in principle, because I believe that people should be heard and that it's natural to be angry about certain things. However, I am one of those people who probably tend to tone police, because it makes it harder for me to listen when people are using an aggressive tone. I do not know how to solve this issue. It is problematic, especially because it means (amongst other things) that I can't work with certain people. It's funny, because in a way I love confrontation. I like heated debates, I like people who are passionate about what they're saying, I love people who get angry about unfairness. But yes, I tone police. If you're shouting at me I won't listen to you. And yes, a lot of the time this is purely involuntary, but a lot of the time it is entirely intentional. I don't want to be screamed at, and I have a right to have conversations in my own terms.

I have been known to say to people, "If you're going to scream at me, I'm not going to listen to you, I would rather not have this conversation". This is a perfect example of tone policing. And I dislike myself (a little bit for it), but here's the thing: I'm not doing it to stop you from expressing your ideas. I swear I'm not. If I could handle people screaming at me violently, I would try to listen. If you're screaming at someone else rather than me, I will listen. If instead of screaming you are aggressive in your tone (pitch) but not your volume or gestures, I will listen to you. I do not have a problem with anger. I think anger is necessary and it drives people. But screaming just shuts me down completely. Basically, in the same way that when I'm telling you "I won't listen to you if you shout at me" is tone policing, shouting at me is content policing. If you shout at me it's a sure way of not ever getting a response from me (or at least a real one, a constructive one). You will win the argument, not because I agree with you, but because I am unable to argue against the shouting. And I will probably be very wary of engaging with you again.

I guess the point of this is that I respect and understand that tone policing exists and that it is not good, and that it is a form of exerting control over oppressed minorities. But I also understand that some people refuse to engage with people who are violent in how they express their views, either on principle or simply because they have trouble dealing with that violence. So, the next time someone asks you to express your point without screaming at them don't shut them down directly by saying "that's tone policing! You have to listen to me because only the content is important!". Some people can't do this. For some people being shouted at, or being spoken to violently is a huge trigger and is unproductive (when not dangerous). So be angry. Be passionate. Say what you think. But be aware of other people's issues. Not everyone can take being shouted at in stride.