Actually, my argument is that tone policing an argument as a 3rd party doesn't make things better, nor is it decent, nor does it make one a "better" person.

What it does is cause resentment between two parties who are prevented from settling their dispute naturally. In cases like on the internet, someone like Patsy cannot force compliance, that happens at the platform level and we all know platforms have chosen what makes money, so it's an empty sentiment that handicaps one side.

In the real world, people who take that stance are most often also unwilling to negotiate a real truce so this is fence sitting. Since these folks are generally unwilling to engage, they actually depend upon those who are to protect them against belligerents. You cannot avoid belligerents forever. Sooner or later, you're foinf to have to confront them and hold your ground or they're going to take it, whatever they have to do to you to do so.

Then there'll be whining and complaining about how the belligerent victimizes them and how u fair it all is and how no one cares.

Sound familiar?

And all this AFTER they've basically spat on everyone who stepped in and stepped up to defend territory with all that tone policing.

On the internet you have belligerents who will not ever stop because the payoff is too great on a terrain where the only power strong enough to check behavior has chosen money over people. And you've got folks who are unwilling to defend the integrity of our common space, therefore depending upon those who are willing and do, exerting social pressure against those them because contlict is not "nice".

No, conflict is not "nice". It is a necessary part of life though. Conflicts end when they are resolved, not when they're interrupted.

Like I said, she sounds like my mother.

Sometimes, you've just got to trust the process.