182

Um, I have 182 draft posts. Oops. Let's quickly format some hyperlinks (usually the reason I don't publish from my phone) and hit "publish" on a few of these. (Back dating to when I originally drafted the post applies, as usual.)

"A Pledge of Convictional Civility"

 I don't know who Millard Erikson is (nor did I bother to Google him), but this list is sooo good.

I will not point out the presuppositions of another’s position without acknowledging that I have presuppositions myself.
I will not contend that another’s view is historically conditioned without conceding that mine is also.
I will be more concerned not to misunderstand or misrepresent others’ views than to claim that mine has been misunderstood or misrepresented.
I will be more concerned that my language by fair and objective than I am that others’ language about me may not be.
I will not caricature my opponent’s view to make my own appear more moderate.
I will not employ ad hominem arguments.
I will abstain from the use of pejorative language.
I will not impute motives or emotions to others.
I will think of intellectual arguments in terms of differences over ideas, not as personal disputes.

[http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2015/04/18/a-pledge-of-convictional-civility/]

Attention Policing

This is a line of logic that will be familiar from most any Meme Event—the logic that says, basically, "don’t look at that; that is unimportant." It’s attention-policing, and it’s reminiscent of so many other strains of rhetorical legislation that play out in online conversations: You can’t say that. You can’t talk about that. GUYS, the attention-policer usually begins. How can you be talking about a dress/a leg/a pair of llamas/a dancing neoprene shark when climate change/net neutrality/marriage equality/ISIS/China/North Korea is going on?

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/02/thedress-and-the-rise-of-attention-policing/386357/]