This is a good thoughtful article about a difficult subject. It really is unfair and unreasonable to expect people to speak calmly about injustices they have endured, and to generally equate rationality with calmness.

However, I don't think one of your examples actually exhibits tone policing. The two responses to the issue of dreads are dealing directly with issues of of content, not of tone. The question "How is someone else's hair your business?" deals specifically with the issue of whether there is something wrong with what is called cultural appropriation. That question can only by answered by explaining what cultural appropriation is and why it is supposed to be bad. So it does not deflect the question it cuts right to the heart of it.

The second comment also deals directly with facts, not tone. It does not shift the conversations away from the broader cultural experience, because the facts it mentions arguably demonstrate that culture is not tied to race. The argument is something like this: If you are a black non-rastafarian, you have no right to say that dreads are "your hairstyle". The white Rastafarian who seriously practices the religion has more right to wear dreads than the black person that is not a rastafarian. Wearing dreads. like the Jewish Yarmulke or the Sikh Turban, is an expression of religious practice, and the religion accepts people of all races. You and/or Ms.Oluo may disagree with this claim, but it is a claim about the cultural experience, not a shift away from that topic.

There is no mention in either comment that somebody should calm down or not get worked up etc. All the other examples you give vividly illustrate the definition of tone policing you give at the beginning of your article. These two examples may be arguments that have other problems, but they are not examples of tone policing as you have defined it.