No. As the rest of the comment indicated, in my world the Teabaggers are fortunate enough that their personal fantasies and psychodramas align with mainstream corporate media narratives of American patriotism and rugged individualism. They don’t have to be clued-in and aware about tone and presentation to the same degree that progressives do.
Clear?
my biggest takeaway from this is that it’s better to keep your mouth shut, because contemporary discourse is a freaking minefield.
But the incoherent rage isn’t the problem in that case. The problem with Trump supporters is what they’re angry about and what their proposed solutions are.
If someone is angry because we don’t have the sort of strictly-enforced race and gender roles that existed in an idealized version of the 1950’s, and if their solution is to burn down the world and dance in the ashes, then the fact that they’re expressing themselves using offensive language is really the smallest part of the problem.
Your post most definitely helps me, as someone who respects the scientific method. Maybe the best appeal to the scientifically literate should be: The idea of a “hermaphrodite” belongs in the garbage heap alongside phrenology.
It would be interesting to see an article written here about this and other outdated, pseudoscientific views that are still hanging on in popular culture.
This comic seems like a recipe for reduced communication. Certainly there are cases where the disenfranchised are not listened to because the emotional presentation in their grievances discomforts their oppressors. HOWEVER, lashing out at your listener, even if they’re compassionate about your cause, seems counterproductive.
I find it puzzling that ‘tone policing’ seems to hinge on the argument of “I’m human, and so have emotions, so don’t you dare make me rise above them to convey a greater truth. But you, the listener, must be a robot, and not have any emotional response at all to my outbursts.”
Seems to me that, if you really want to be heard, you need to moderate your delivery for your audience. And, if you really want to listen and learn from others, you need to widen your acceptance of ways in which the message is delivered. I think this ‘tone policing’ thing goes both ways.
now… cue up responses claiming I’m tone policing
Half the comments here can be summarized as follows: I totally agree that tone policing is bad … but if you guys would watch your tone, your activism would be more effective.
You all realize you’re doing the very thing this comic is talking about, right?
I learned back in the 1970s that if you calm down enough to stop the other person from asking you to calm down, then they tend to not pay attention to what you are saying at all.
So you recommend internalizing the oppression.
@MissCellania Please read the comic. If you had, you would not have posted what you did. Tone policing has little to do with tone. It is a tactic used to shut down the speaker, regardless of how calm they are.
Seeing a lot of misunderstanding of the concept in the comments section of the post that very simply explained the concept. Please don’t let BoingBoing turn into Slashdot.
I think when it’s a subject you may not be familiar with or experiences that aren’t you’re own, listening is a GOOD thing.
There was literally no logic in what you said earlier. Here’s the Wikipedia entry in case you are seriously unfamiliar with this concept:
I would have the same amount of white privilege if my ancestors were earnest salt-of-the-earth hard-working Midwestern farm folk, stoic logicians, or drunken abusive welfare cheats.
If you’re familiar with the concept of societal privilege but choose to play dumb for the sake of an emotion-driven argument, that’s not very logical, now is it?
What makes you think I didn’t read or understand the comic? Was it my tone?
Terrible lesson, but so true. 
This thread won’t last the day. And not just because of tone.
Was this intentional irony?
When one cannot truly see an individual due to a conviction that the individual is best defined by membership in a category, it is called prejudice or bigotry. If the category is racial or gendered, there are specialized but well known terms for the practice of judging an entire category to the exclusion of individual history or behavior.
When “they are all the same” it’s likely there is a problem in the eye of the beholder.
This is an example of overcategorizing. I am very willing to criticize tone, and I almost never try to shut anyone down.
What? I should occasionally stop talking long enough to hear someone say something? Sounds like total SJW bullshit.
That’s another tactic for shutting down an uncomfortable opinion, wilfully misrepresenting their message. Don’t be disingenuous.
I recommend choosing an effective conversion tactic over one that feels good.
I’ve been completely ignorant about the use and history of the term until now. So, for this datapoint of one, it did help. 
I’m not sure what you’re saying exactly. You’re describing prejudice or bigotry, but privilege is the absence of prejudice or bigotry. For example, white privilege means not experiencing systemic racism because one appears white.
Maybe “privilege” isn’t the best word, because freedom from systemic discrimination isn’t privilege, it’s negative reinforcement. Also, this word choice leads to willfully-ignorant arguments like “I’m not privileged because I was homeless” and “damn right I’m privileged, I work hard”. I’m not going to quibble on word choice, but I find the concept to be spot on.
Absolutely not. I strive to convey information with a neutral tone because you need to know what you feel about it, not what I feel about it. What I feel about it is my problem, not yours. Emotions are more or less self-contained, but social issues are not.
