Link back to commentThanks Arnd. The principle of philosophical charity, requiring that we attach the strongest possible interpretation to an opponent’s argument when responding to it, is a sound one.
The problem nowadays is that so much of what we see is about suppressing speech, rather than responding to it argumentatively. Instead of ‘I disagree with what you say, for the following reasons’ we often hear ‘I am offended by what you say, and you should not be allowed to say it, and the fact you say it shows you are a bad person’.
And please don’t feel obligated to disagree with my views – nodding sagely in agreement is very acceptable!