But the Law of hospitality makes it difficult for any ethical program, even one carried out by a computational machine, to remain in place forever. The future of ethical programs requires a continuous vigilance in this regard, a vigilance that insists upon constant reexamination of the laws.
This too possess awesome potential for discussions of civility and the political paradigm of any given moment.
“conversations”
Thinking of this as a "conversation" is cool because it allows the parallel with what is civil within such conversations. And when is the time for "protest," and what that might look like?
volunteers also used procedural arguments to write back against the campaign and navigate the complex power dynamics of networked power.
This was a cool parallel to protest that I plan on hijacking and extending.
ethos as dwelling
Xiaoye You runs with this idea in a chapter called "The Arts of Dwelling Places" in an edited collection called Critical and Corpus-Based Approaches to Intercultural Rhetoric. It also appears in his new book called Cosmopolitan English and Transliteracy.
a space where VR identity is only loosely connected to RL identity
To some extent isn't this the case for all scholarly writing? An ethos exhibited in scholarship is often far afield of an ethos maintained in other facets of a scholar's life. Some scholars even use a name for their scholarship that doesn't correspond to their RL identity.
Rhetoric is often positioned as what we use when we don’t want to use force—a set of tools for persuading rather than exploiting.
While Galloway and Thacker’s account seems to suggest that persuasion would be much less useful than exploits
Does viewing Aristotle's enthymeme as exploiting the unconscious mechanisms of "practical reason" (also Aristotle) help meliorate between persuasion and the exploit?
The exploit begins from the assumptions that thresholds are not clear and that the porousness of boundaries offer up the possibility of exploring multiple solutions or answers.
A useful launching point for challenging systems more generally.
does not see it as foreclosing political action or activism.
Opposing protocol is like opposing gravity
Who gets to exploit gaps in software?
exploits trace the edges of a digital space
I'm interested in what the concept of the exploit has to offer analysis of political situations in which a disruption occurs as a result of a gap in a political network.
exploit
much more than manipulation or the covert programming of the polis
Brown has shown that procedural arguments are much more than this, but they are also still this. I would love to see similar analysis of a campaign that the author and audience are less likely to empathize with. Trump, maybe :)
to encourage writers to make a more individual expression.
If the potential voter indicates that she or he is a McCain or Clinton supporter, the call may very well be over. The campaign volunteer is instructed to thank the person for his or her time and hang up the phone.
kind of abuse
This seems a logical result of gamification. Once you create a "game," you might be understood as inviting users/participants to see the primary goal as winning by accumulating points.
affordances
It seems like the ability of games, no matter how simple, to encourage a behavior is an accordance that they care a great deal about.
Becoming procedurate
What might a pedagogy that encouraged students to become procedurate look like? This process appears to be an overlooked facet of "critical literacy" that warrants engaging.
The Redistricting Game
How do new media technologies that invite interaction both participate in and resist the tightly controlled messages of political campaigns?
And more generally, how does new media tech resist any and all messages?
extend an invitation
I'm interested in the overlap of such an invitation with the invitational paradigm constituting one side of rhetoric's conversation regarding the efficacy of calling for civility.
then the chance that the two services would be able to talk with each other would be maximized
I'm interested in the utility of Postel's Law when dominant transmitters no longer adhere to it. In that situation, how long will it remain a law of hospitality that the less powerful adhere?
The Law provokes laws, and laws can never remain absolutely faithful to the Law.
Are there instances where those constructing the laws of hospitality may purposefully defy "the Law" for political purposes, paralleling a model of material civil disobedience?