interpreting charitably

 Philosopher David Henderson nails it here. Right? It's not a matter of optimism or pessimism, naivete or hardbittenness. It's about one's moral duty.

A friend and I were discussing the seeming shift toward thinking the worst of people lately. Human nature hasn't changed, but 50 years ago there were financial incentives to appeal to the greatest number of people, and so that meant finding the thing that the most people could agree on.

So, in discussing race, the show "MASH" would have an episode about a wounded young black soldier fighting for his country and needing a blood infusion: it's a slam dunk. Very *very* few people in America at that time would deep-down say he shouldn't get it.

Fast forward to today, where there are financial incentives to appeal to the few people who will totally connect with you, and so that means finding the thing that those people get most fired up about, no matter what everyone else thinks.

So, in discussing race, a show or podcast will have an episode about how "woke" people hate America; another will have an episode about how "un-woke" people hate America. Very few people (compared to MASH's audience) will even hear or see it, much less agree — but those people provide enough revenue.

And that's just a readily-available political thing. But it applies everywhere. Dating and match sites have long known that a modern-day Christie Brinkley actually does *not* get as much activity as a modern-day Joan Jett would. Same thing going on.