Tone Policing Is Good Actually

If you want to win, you should not act insane

During the summer of 2020, there was an infuriatingly common pattern. People on the far left would endorse radical and insane-sounding slogans and then accuse you of tone-policing if you argued against the slogans. They called for abolishing the police. They claimed all cops were bastards. Then, when you pointed out that this was likely to be bad for getting reasonable and pragmatic criminal justice reform passed (if you sound completely fucking insane, you are unlikely to get people on board), they accused you of tone policing—which, as we all know, is a crime comparable to genocide.

It was especially enraging because there was an effort, around 2020, to be as edgy in messaging as possible. When what you really meant was that there were institutional problems in policing, you were supposed to say “all cops are bastards.” When what you really meant was that policing had problems that needed to be fixed, you were supposed to say “abolish the police.” This was a degree of rhetorical genius on the level of Biden’s declaration that “we finally beat Medicare”—perhaps those advocating for school vouchers should make their slogans “all teachers are bastards,” and “abolish schools,” (before, of course, clarifying that what they meant by those outlandish slogans was really something moderate and milquetoast, and they only endorsed things that sounded braindead to fit in with their anarchist friends).

But tone policing should not be a dirty word. Tone policing is a good and vital part of any serious movement. The only reason people hate it is because they care more about signaling to their leftist friends than achieving their political aims.

I recently read Rutger Bregman’s excellent book Moral Ambition that was, in large part, about successful historical movements. One of the things I took away was a powerful sense of just how much successful historical movements cared about optics. The civil-rights movement was led by eloquent people in suits who spoke movingly and persuasively about injustice—and largely succeeded because relatively racist bystanders found it off-putting to watch peaceful protestors get savagely beaten. Civil-rights protestors didn’t have the blasé attitude towards insane-sounding rhetoric that modern social justice movements do; instead, they were deeply concerned with being persuasive to the white moderates who would majorly impact the fate of their movement. Abolitionists were hugely concerned about optics, even to the point of sidelining Quakers for being seen as an odd religious cult.

While these days it’s seen by leftists as cringe to say nice things about MLK Jr. and his non-violent approach, he was a major part of the success of the civil rights movement. If the movement had been led exclusively by people like Malcolm X, they would have had considerably less success. People don’t like violence even in support of righteous causes.

Politicians succeed by appealing to a largely non-ideological mass of ill-informed voters. If voters’ sense of some group is “they’re the people who enjoy lighting shit on fire and call for abolishing the police,” that group is unlikely to succeed. If their sense is instead “oh those are the nice articulate people who speak movingly about injustice and their love for America but have been unfairly savagely attacked by thugs in uniform,” the group is far more likely to succeed.

Now, obviously there is a difference between unpopular slogans and political violence. But the same factors are at play at both: if you do things that are viscerally off-putting to 99% of the population, this is unlikely to help your electoral odds. The take that got David Shor fired is still correct (Edit: Chance Philips informs me in the comments that there has been more recent research contradicting this—I’d still guess the Shor take is right, but I am less sure). And research bears out that non-violence works better than violence for achieving one’s political aims.

In recent weeks, there have been two different kinds of protests. One of them has been the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. The other has been the No-Kings protest. The anti-ICE protestors decided to light random shit on fire. This included Waymos—which notably were not involved in deportation efforts. The No-Kings protest, in contrast, was non-violent and chill. It has been received far more favorably and been quite a bit better politically. The No-Kings protest has likely helped the Democrats, while the anti-ICE protest, at least in its more violent and extreme manifestations, has obviously hurt the Democrats.

If the image voters have of your movement is a bunch of nice grandmothers waving American flags, they will be favorably disposed towards it. If the image voters have is “masked guy waving a Mexican flag next to the rubble of a burning car,” they will not be disposed favorably towards your protest movement. So if you want to win rather than be edgy, you should be like the first kind of movement and not like the second. You should not set random shit on fire.

So long as part of what determines the success of your political movement is what your movement says and does, then making sure your movement says and does good things is important! Tone policing is vital. If you sound like a crazy person, you will not win! If you set random shit on fire and wave Mexican flags around—to symbolize how much you hate America—the median voter who is conflict-averse, pro-assimilation, and patriotic will be less in favor of your cause. This is blindingly obvious.

Also, it’s worth mentioning, the people saying this are always giant hypocrites. The same people who say that you shouldn’t criticize people for calling for police abolition or claiming all cops are bastards are the first people to advocate for your public execution if you use the wrong pronouns. The same people who claim that it’s beyond the pale to criticize the rhetoric of professional activists say that you should be harshly criticized for saying “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” or “America is a melting pot.” The same people who claim that you shouldn’t refer to the master bedroom in a house think criticizing activists for calling for the deaths of Zionists or joking about killing all men is comparable to police violence!

In reality, most of these people are not anti-tone-policing. They just are in favor of the tones that are being policed. They’re perfectly happy enforcing conformity to the dull linguistic norms of HR people. What they cannot stand is the suggestion that when advocating for your position, you should not say things that are maximally off-putting to the average voter and dramatically lower the odds of your policies being enacted.

Even the term “tone policing” is idiotic. Like many other phrases used by the woke, it’s used to blur the lines between the innocuous and the morally serious. The term “psychic violence,” for instance, is used to blur the line between actual violence and saying things that someone doesn’t like. The term “tone policing” is used to blur the line between immoral actions performed by police—like beating random protestors—and politely suggesting that people shouldn’t light random things on fire even if their cause is righteous.

If you care about enacting your political agenda, rather than LARPing as a communist revolutionary, you should care about how you come across to the average voter. You should favor tone policing. The fact that a sizeable portion of the activist left regards this notion with disdain is just one of many ways that they have lost the plot.