The irony of rudely over-explaining intellectual charity to someone who just asked for a tiny bit of it from you is just…really something my friend. I hope you’ll pause on that for a moment and ask yourself if you ever sincerely tried to give me any whatsoever throughout this exchange.

I understand the concept of intellectual charity perfectly well, I’ve deliberately granted it to you repeatedly throughout this conversation. I, and people I enjoy talking to, extend intellectual charity a bit beyond just that literal definition you supplied, of reading specific statements in a charitable way. I try to extend intellectual charity to my assumptions about the minds writing the statements, because I think it’s kinder, more fair, more productive, and just frankly the “true spirit of the idea” (if such a thing can be said to exist). But again, it’s yours to give and not mine to demand.

To be clear, though, implying that I don’t know what it means, and that I invoked it as some kind of “win the argument button” is just…super uncharitable of you. A fun irony from someone who claims to know such an awful lot about the idea.

Separately, I’ll cheerfully concede that Germany does make your point better than mine, that was a sloppy misstep on my behalf. What I’ll say about that, to try to convince you one final time that my position is internally consistent and merits at least sincere consideration - I recognize the slippery slope that begins right outside the line of my position, and I recognize that diligent effort and vigilance must be brought to bear to prevent the narrow intolerance from cascading into broader denials of liberties.

And I still think that’s preferable compared to allowing some of the (historically proven…) most vile and damaging ideologies to spread. Even worse, I recognize that ultimately - human beings I don’t know or particularly trust will be the ones making those calls, because they’re interested in spending their lives in government and such, and I’m not. What I think you don’t properly understand about my position is how close I believe we are in the US to violent, world-shaping fascism. If that begins in earnest, is that the point where you finally say “okay we gotta do something more direct about this, the free market of ideas isn’t going to make this problem go away on its own”? I can tell you with certainty, the most vulnerable folks who suffer most (or at least first) under that scenario will never share your point of view. They’ll rightly condemn us for allowing this to happen, just as many of us condemn the oh-so-liberal Germans who stood by during the rise of Nazism.

Before we got to this precipice, I shared your point of view basically wholesale. Because I believed it worked well enough to prevent us from getting here - but I was wrong! - it didn’t. Maybe you’re right and we’ll tip back toward safety from the ledge, public sentiment and political movements tend to swing like a pendulum after all. But I personally no longer believe your approach is sufficient. I very well understand the risks of what I’m advocating for, and I still believe it’s the right move.

Maybe 10 years from now I feel differently yet again, I’d sure love to. But my intellectual life has been essentially a cascading series of the slow grinding away of idealism into ugly-but-useful pragmatism. And things just get worse, and worse, and worse, and worse…so I don’t really expect to return to idealism, as pleasant and “right” as it feels.