It might be more helpful to consider Keith's original point in terms of agenda denial which is a tactic that is used to avoid discussion of topics that a party knows they will lose if they get to the facts.
Tone policing is an agenda denial strategy. But so is jamming a conversation with irrelevant and repetitive statements.
Tone policing is the specific strategy of saying that because something was raised in the wrong way, it cannot ever be raised. So the canonical version would be a tinpot dictatorship that suspends parliament with the intention of provoking a riot it will use as pretext for seizing power.
Tone policing not exactly unknown in IETF but the strategy of poisoning a debate by being disruptive is much more common.
