fuckyeahdontbeadouche:

mwchase reblogged your post: julesliketheverne reblogged your photo: The idea…

I feel like it doesn’t quite work. While the situation you present does illustrate differences in approach, the…

You have an excellent point. Would this be any better?

You have three protesters,…

Doesn’t quite work, for me.  The tone argument is a specific manifestation of the ad hominem fallacy.  It’s saying “Because you exhibit quality X, I don’t have to address your argument.”, where quality X is an abrasive tone.

Now, there’s no actual connection between exhibiting a given “negative” quality X, and not having a good argument.  (There may be correlations, but they should usually not be absolute.)  When the tone argument looks valid to some, is when they can say “You have an abrasive tone, and you’re not making a coherent argument.”  They’re bringing up tone because there is nothing else to bring up; the criticism is valid in that case, but that’s because it’s truly directed towards a lack of substance.

“Tone argument” is a term specifically devised to refer to attacks on tone with no regard to substance; it should not be conflated with critiques of substance, even if they are accompanied by commentary on tone.