EDIT: Apparently concern trolling is not identical to tone policing, although I often see the term "concern trolling" used to dismiss tone-oriented meta-discussion. In my post, when I say concern trolling, I'm talking about tone policing. This is a very good (satirical) example of what I often see dismissed as concern trolling tone policing. My bad, sorry for the confusion.
-----------
EDIT2: I may as well give my opinion on the behavior "concern trolling" apparently actually means (Person from "side A" pretends to be a member of "side B" with "concerns"). Personally, I oppose ad hominem dismissals (I've been guilty of doing it myself), and support merit-only discourse. However, Gotchaye's post raises some good utilitarian points about culturally respecting and encouraging sincerity, which would require looking beyond just the merits of the argument. But that being said, I think that, regarding forces that cause people to adopt insincere, deceptive personas and concern troll, a far more powerful motivator than accepting merit-only discourse is the ubiquitous disregarding of arguments--regardless of merit--of people who align with a different group. Merit-only discourse would fix this problem, so I believe merit-only discourse would produce less concern trolls and less insincerity, not more. Why? Because we don't care about your personal identity, we only care whether or not your argument has merit. You don't have to be deceptive to be heard. You just have to present an argument with validity. The motive to concern troll evaporates. (Edit: Well, I suppose some motives would remain...)
---------------------------
-------Original OP (with strikes)(the new strikes ruin my but/and strike semi-jokes)--------
---------------------------
One of my current courses is Negotiations. My professors and the authors of our texts are professional negotiation attorneys, as well as researchers on the subject.
Their life careers consist of working with opposing parties with opposing interests, and getting the most optimal result for their client.
And yet, almost everything they're teaching us would be considered concern trolling tone policing by the internet. I've seen this dismissal from virtually every side of every issue.
For example, they keep hammering upon us that we need to avoid saying "but," and instead use "and." In some situations, we're told, it's even best to meta-discuss with the opposing party about how the negotiations are going and how to improve them!
These concern trolling tone policing professors--who focus so much on small adjustments in tone and how to say things--get results. Aren't results what we all want?
Note that I put "almost" in the thread title, because, yes, there may exist somewhere a troll who really is pretending to have tonal concerns but really doesn't care and is just instigating.
But And when you receive information on how to better get what you want, dismissing the information/informant as concern trolling/a concern troll tone policing is not only fallaciously baseless, it's going counter to your own interests for whatever issue you're discussing. Even in the very rare instance the source is legitimately trolling, if the information he gives you is inaccurate, rather than dismissing what he says because you think he's a concern troll tone policing troll, you can dismiss what he says because it's inaccurate. And more importantly, if the information he gives you is accurate and will help you adjust your technique and message to more effectively convert allies and get the results you want, then you certainly are better off not dismissing what he says because you think he's a concern trolling tone policing troll. He's given you a gift, regardless of his intentions.
I've seen this dismissal from virtually every side of every issue. But And whether what an alleged concern troll says is accurate or inaccurate, there is no utility in dismissing what they say as concern trolling tone policing. Embrace the accurate, dismiss the inaccurate as inaccurate.
-----------
EDIT2: I may as well give my opinion on the behavior "concern trolling" apparently actually means (Person from "side A" pretends to be a member of "side B" with "concerns"). Personally, I oppose ad hominem dismissals (I've been guilty of doing it myself), and support merit-only discourse. However, Gotchaye's post raises some good utilitarian points about culturally respecting and encouraging sincerity, which would require looking beyond just the merits of the argument. But that being said, I think that, regarding forces that cause people to adopt insincere, deceptive personas and concern troll, a far more powerful motivator than accepting merit-only discourse is the ubiquitous disregarding of arguments--regardless of merit--of people who align with a different group. Merit-only discourse would fix this problem, so I believe merit-only discourse would produce less concern trolls and less insincerity, not more. Why? Because we don't care about your personal identity, we only care whether or not your argument has merit. You don't have to be deceptive to be heard. You just have to present an argument with validity. The motive to concern troll evaporates. (Edit: Well, I suppose some motives would remain...)
---------------------------
-------Original OP (with strikes)(the new strikes ruin my but/and strike semi-jokes)--------
---------------------------
One of my current courses is Negotiations. My professors and the authors of our texts are professional negotiation attorneys, as well as researchers on the subject.
Their life careers consist of working with opposing parties with opposing interests, and getting the most optimal result for their client.
And yet, almost everything they're teaching us would be considered
For example, they keep hammering upon us that we need to avoid saying "but," and instead use "and." In some situations, we're told, it's even best to meta-discuss with the opposing party about how the negotiations are going and how to improve them!
These
Note that I put "almost" in the thread title, because, yes, there may exist somewhere a troll who really is pretending to have tonal concerns but really doesn't care and is just instigating.
I've seen this dismissal from virtually every side of every issue.