5 ms·
I don't like this saying because it generalises too much. For example, if you follow this line of thought you'd never investigate murderous cops simply because
by bitcharmer 5y ago
I don't like this saying because it generalises too much.
For example, if you follow this line of thought you'd never investigate murderous cops simply because their cameras where turned off due to their incompetence rather than purposeful, malicious action.
- throwanem 5y agoThe first two words of the rule are "never assume".
- bitcharmer 5y agoReductio ad absurdum. If you were really honest about the meaning of the quote you should say "never assume malice" because that's the actual statement here.
- doctor_eval 5y agoNot at all. If you have two equally likely possibilities - malice and incompetence - you should assume incompetence. I have another saying though: “Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”.
- AussieWog93 5y ago"Attempting to invalidate random quotes you read on the internet by taking them to logical extremes is kind of missing the point." - Albert Einstein
- alexcosan 5y agoI see this more as "do not assume until there's evidence of malice". Not that you should not look for evidence - basically, innocent until proven guilty. There's a tendency to judge every ignorant act as malice when, a lot of times, it's just that - ignorance/incompetence. Not talking specifically about this case, although it may apply, we just read a twitter thread.
- wccrawford 5y agoIt's not "never investigate". It's "never assume".