Interpretive Charity and Heated Debate

Source: ProSocial Libertarians
by Aeon J Skoble

“Sometimes we just get angry at people who disagree with us, and we are bewildered that others don’t see things our way. But we should resist the temptation to straw-man. If you don’t have the emotional bandwidth to argue with people, you’re certainly not required to do so. But if you do think it’s worth arguing about, then your objectives will be better served with interpretive charity. What actually is the other person’s position, and why? Why do they think your position is wrong? Is there something that might be common ground? Are you talking past each other? Are you sure that your position is informed by facts and logic? Do you have any talking points that might be misinformed?” (06/14/22)