I've been part of an ongoing conversation at An und fur sich about "meritocracy," that has become another case in point about "having conversations on the internet." Whether I am reading the situation rightly or not, I would like to propose a particular technique for performing hermeneutic charity, and I hope that perform it near as often as I believe I do.
When having a controversial conversation with someone, try to propose what inference you are imputing to your interlocutor before you assert the conclusion upon them. In that way, you approach the conversation by indicating all these implicit conclusions that your interlocutor may or may not be aware of, and I will admit that this is dicey in practice, but I think at least approaching the conversation from the perspective is beneficial.
In the case of the recent conversation at An und fur sich, I was met with so many asserted conclusions that implied premises that I did not hold, that my end of the conversation collapsed under the weight. Trying to recover probably just wasted people's time, and I should likely have stepped out, but then if we backed out of every such conversation we would rarely speak of controversial things.
I have run into this problem before in a much bigger way when I used to discuss cross-tradition metaphysics on this blog. In those cases, I sketched out such large arguments--hoping and then telling my interlocutor that I was trying to figure out what might be true for their position to work--that I was accused of being pedantic and not listening. I offer that as an example of how my suggested tip for hermeneutic charity can fail miserably, as I tried to propose what I thought an interlocutor doing, and my proposal did not match the person's self-understanding.