Surprisingly, they're different
It appears I've spurned a debate about tone. Smashing.
However, it appears that the focus has been diverted to tone from what the actual problem is: No one appreciates being personally attacked for voicing a certain belief and/or opinion.
The problem that people all too often have, and which I dare say has popped up again, is that they confuse opinions with people. Unfortunately, the two are not synonymous, although I admit things would be a lot easier if they were.
But let us go to what has spurned the whole issue of "tone."
I seem to have written a rather hasty, charged, condescending, and sarcastic article about the AFA, criticizing what I believe to be something stupid that it did. So yes, I was condescending. Yes, I was sarcastic. Yes, I was critical. OF THE ACTIONS OF AN ORGANIZATION.
What do I get back? Sarcastic, condescending comments. The same brand of attack that I sent out. But I did not attack anyone. I attacked the actions that an entity chose to undertake. The only individuals who I can even be accused of attacking, and indirectly at that, are the specific leaders of said organization that decide what the organization does or does not do. And I didn't even attack them. I just mentioned that I thought that, in this one instance, they did something which I considered to be ill-advised. That's it.
See, I don't care about tone. I fully expect to get the tone that I put out in a blog. However, I don't expect to be attacked personally when I speak out about things that are not physically quantifiable. That's not debate. Debate is idea vs. idea. Position vs. position, point and counterpoint. Debate is me saying "I think xyz about xyz because of xyz" and someone responding "You're wrong for thinking xyz about what xyz did because xyz." Debate is not me saying "I think xyz about xyz because of xyz" and someone responding "You're an xyz."
And that goes for any cute variations on "You're an xyz," such as "You're acting like an xyz," "If I didn't know better I'd think you were an xyz," or any other such type of response. That's not fooling anyone. That's like starting a sentence with "No offense, but." You obviously know what you're about to say is offensive. At least have the guts to say it flat out.
But I digress. The point here is that the "tone" of a blog is not at issue here, the content is. It is not about someone setting a tone and being upset when that tone is returned. It is about someone criticizing an idea or action and getting personally attacked for it. If I spew venom, of course I expect venom back. I don't appreciate it, however, when poison is spit at my face, when mine is only ever aimed at the thought bubble next to you.