I do see references to the Principle of Charity occasionally, and I strongly support it. But to be meta-charitable to an anti-charity stance: doesn't a social norm of charity create an attack vector that can be exploited by dishonest actors? Alt-righters (the real ones) can use the Principle of Charity as cover, cherry-picking their talking points to just barely stay within the realm of acceptable "classical-liberal" discourse, while subtly nudging in the direction of ethnostates, distributed violence against The Other, etc.

I'm very nearly a free speech absolutist, both politically and culturally. But we have "gut checks" for a reason, and I think it's okay to sometimes make a call that someone's BSing or disingenuously grandstanding, even if their surface arguments sound reasonable (Stefan Molyneux is my canonical example here). Obviously that has to be tempered and can easily go awry (per Eric Weinstein's model of "critical feeling"), but to eschew that instinct entirely robs us of a valuable "cheater detection" mechanism.

You are correct that charity can be exploited (both the "charitable interpretation" we strive for here, and giving actual resources to people in need). More generally, kindness can be exploited. Love can be exploited.

Be charitable anyway. Be kind anyway. Love anyway.

The alternative - not being charitable, not being kind, not loving - can ruin your life. Yes, you can be exploited. But give charity, kindness, and love, if not for the other person, then for yourself. Being the kind of person who won't be kind or love is miserable.

I agree with this. One of the things I've always loved about Star Trek isn't just its radical utopian economics, and sentientist egalitarianism, but the specific parable of the Kobiyashi Maru: that it is preferable to knowingly enter a fatal trap that exploits our altruism, than to risk failing to help those who are truly suffering when it is in our power to do so.

Still, I think it's better to make such choices intentionally, informed by both conscious deliberation and gut-check instincts. There are instances where one can "throw good money after bad", wasting altruistic resources to no end; or, where "tough love" is warranted, such as the case of enabling addicts and alcoholics, and the kindest act to take might be to withdraw.

Reframing back to speech issues, the current standard I'd like to see in public squares, is the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard that is (ostensibly) applied in our legal system. It's easy to squint at something like "The Bell Curve" and see arguments for scientific racism, and under a "preponderance of evidence" standard, perhaps it would be found guilty; but we should find the prospect of discarding potentially true ideas as abhorrent as convicting a potentially innocent citizen. Nonetheless, in private life, we are free to draw whatever conclusions we please, where we consider that OJ Simpson probably committed murder, and Charles Murray might not be an entirely unbiased analyst. (Though perhaps the very crux of the matter is the blending between public and private realms of thought. What would a quasi-Bayesian Rule of Law look like in the court of public opinion and outrage mobs?)

The Principle of Charity is "designed" under an assumption of a closed or semi-closed community with the abilities to 1. kick people out of the community, and 2. absorb new people into the community slowly-enough that the new people will enculturate to the community's norms, rather than the influx of people shifting the community's norms towards its own.

The classical "community" being referred to here is academia. The Principle of Charity works within academia. It also works within trade-guilds, member's clubs, etc. Any group with both friction to get in, and the ability to exclude people for bad behavior, filters for there being almost-entirely "well-behaved towards fellow group-members" people inside the group at any given time.

The Principle of Charity can work in open-membership communities, like HN, but only for as long as the community remains a niche community with linear growth.

The Principle of Charity probably fails within society as a whole, or in open-membership forums with exponential growth, e.g. Reddit or Usenet.

And it especially fails when you have people from cultures with conflicting beliefs in the same place. Which is why "diplomacy" was invented: to create a shared "diplomatic pseudo-culture" that diplomats can be members of, such that they share norms with one-another and can communicate in a way their non-diplomat citizens cannot.

> The Principle of Charity can work in open-membership communities, like HN, but only for as long as the community remains a niche community with linear growth.

> The Principle of Charity probably fails within society as a whole, or in open-membership forums with exponential growth, e.g. Reddit or Usenet.

I disagree. It likely won't maintain itself naturally, but I see no reason why it couldn't be maintained with a more substantial enforcement/education initiative. Similarly with overall society - I agree achieving this in a widespread fashion down to the individually is likely possible, but if we could even achieve some compliance from the media, politicians, and experts, I reckon it would go a long way toward improving the current state of affairs.

>> Alt-righters (the real ones) can use the Principle of Charity as cover, cherry-picking their talking points...

Members of every tribe do this, sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly. It seems to be an "unavoidable" artifact of the evolution of the human mind. But with some work, I believe this too could be dramatically improved.

> Alt-righters (the real ones) can use the Principle of Charity as cover, cherry-picking their talking points to just barely stay within the realm of acceptable "classical-liberal" discourse, while subtly nudging in the direction of ethnostates, distributed violence against The Other, etc.

I've actually seen people try to do this, and it never works. Imagine, if you will, a closet tankie trying to nudge "classical liberal" discourse towards praise of Stalin, Mao etc. They'll never get around to revealing their "power level" because the whole worldview is just too silly from an open and "broadly charitable" PoV. It's only a few worldviews that can hope to subvert that framework, and ironically enough authoritarian "wokeness" seems to be one of them.