The Case for Fighting Fair (When No One Else Will)
Charitable warfare is the practice of interpreting your opponent’s position in its strongest, most coherent form before engaging with it. Essentially steelmanning rather than strawmanning in ideological conflict.
The principle demands we ask what the most thoughtful proponent of this view would argue, rather than seeking out the dumbest version we can attack.
Why it’s absent:
Our information ecosystem rewards the opposite. Algorithms amplify outrage. Quote tweets showcase dunks on the weakest arguments. We’re incentivized to find the most extreme, least defensible version of opposing views because it generates engagement and makes our side feel superior.
Implementation requires three commitments
First is epistemic humility. We must acknowledge that intelligent, moral people can reach different conclusions from the same evidence.
Second is asymmetric interpretation. We should be more charitable to others’ arguments than our own, since we naturally favor our positions.
Third is public modeling. We need to visibly engage with the strongest counterarguments, even when easier targets exist.
When to implement it:
Always, but especially when stakes are highest. The more consequential the disagreement about governance, rights, or resource allocation, the more critical that we engage with actual positions rather than caricatures.
The irony is that charitable warfare proves more effective for persuasion than its alternative. People change their minds when they feel understood, not when they feel mocked.
We’re not losing arguments. We’re losing the capacity to have them.
Spread this note like wildfire 🔥