Quoting from https://blog.apaonline.org/2022/05/10/tone-policing-and-the-assertion-of-authority/:
Tone policing is when someone (usually a privileged person) in a conversation about oppression shifts the conversation from the oppression being discussed to the way it is being discussed. Tone policing prioritizes the comfort of the privileged person in the situation over the oppression of the disadvantaged person.
At its core, tone-policing is first an argumentative move sideways and then a stall. It first shifts the focus from the content of the conversation to the tone, language, or manner of discussion (as the quote above says) and then – unlike other interventions about tone – policing announces that the shift cannot be reversed until tone is addressed. The tone-policer doesn’t just declare that their interlocutor’s tone is inappropriate and heightened (usually because it is too hostile, adversarial, or aggressive, upset, or irrational). They insist that the conversation cannot continue until the speaker adjusts it.
This “aggressive atmosphere” is a direct product of having a thread slowly nearing the 100 comments and little to no productive discussion having happened because it constantly got dragged by down some dudes being stuck at the very most basics at best and actively sabotaging the discussion at worst.
And yes, to state explicitly what is implicit, I consider you –among many others in this thread– to be a part of this problem. Here, as well as in other past discussions which ended up similarly. And also part of the problem is a moderation culture which does not act upon such a persistent stream of micro-aggressions, thus fostering a culture where this is acceptable behavior.