Critiques can be about form or about content. Correcting a grammatical error is at one end of the spectrum; at the other end could be an argument against someone’s specific political belief. The Schoolmarm avoids the latter extreme, but sometimes must venture a ways into that direction. In a very principled way, though.

The key concept involved here is the talking point. Talking points are common, abbreviated ideas that underlie political discussions. Sometimes they are referenced explicitly, but more often implicitly. Both sides have many different talking points. Just a couple basic examples:

	(Common on right)	When it comes to race, we should be colorblind.
	(Common on left)	Abortion restrictions deny women their rights.

Talking points come in many shapes and sizes. Some, like slogans and buzzwords, are very abstract. Stereotypes and tropes paint oversimplified pictures of people or groups. Some talking points have long intellectual histories behind them.

Here, though, are several key problems with talking points:

1. We often have limited awareness of how thin they are.
2. They originate from propagandists and political party consultants.
3. They are intentionally designed to hide important, legitimate problems and issues. In other words, they present a one-sided framing.

The usage of talking points thus can have a polarizing effect.

Take the above two talking point examples. Should we still be colorblind if there are continued kinds of unfairness? But implicit in the talking point is that only colorblindness matters. (See how the talking point obscures relevant questions?) Similarly: Don’t moral concerns about killing a fetus matter at all? But only the woman’s rights are mentioned, with no acknowledgement of nuance or tradeoffs or religious sensitivities.

On occasions where the Schoolmarm critiques a common, specific political talking point, she is not trying to destroy it or take sides. Rather, she is trying to raise awareness of what the talking point is designed to ignore, or of faulty reasoning that is embedded in it.

Talking points always have at least an element of truth in them. But if we are unaware of what a talking point is hiding or distorting, productive discussion is unlikely, and opponents will see the talking point simply as evidence of deceitfulness.

Some extremists (on both sides) do not care if their talking points are one-sided. In fact, some would argue that, since the other side is so evil and wrong, any kind of attempt at depolarization will give ground to the other side and shrink their own partisan advantage.