3 ms·

I'll just copy my comment from another leaf of this thread: I don't like this saying because it generalises too much. For example, if you follow this line of

I'll just copy my comment from another leaf of this thread: 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.

koide 5y ago
You're misunderstanding the quote. It doesn't mean to never investigate, but to never start with the assumption that it is malice. You can complement it with the famous "trust, but verify" quote. Or with "giving the benefit of the doubt".
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  Nope, the quote is quite limited in terms of conveying the idea. It never says anything about verification or trust. It basically says: "never assume malice if it's possible that incompetence took place". That's pretty naïve way to see the world, especially in this day and age.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    > never assume malice if it's possible that incompetence took place". Reading the quote literally i disagree. There is miles of difference between "adequately explained" and "possible" > That's pretty naïve way to see the world, especially in this day and age. I would actually argue the other way is naive. Assuming that all bad things that happen in the world are because of an evil person is what happens in movies and fairly tales. The real world is almost never that black and white.
    - bitcharmer 5y ago
      Your sentiment is quite common among people raised in comfy, western parts of the world. I now live here and am astonished by the amount of adult, supposedly life-experienced people going into full shock that always comes with comments like: "I would never expect our government to do such thing!". It's time to grow up. I bet you think billionaires are good people and real justice takes place in the courts of law. Also, rich people face the same consequences as the rest of us. No?
      - samatman 5y ago
        Just so you understand clearly, when you lose the thread completely like this and start responding emotionally and personally, you've lost the argument and everyone watching knows it. You would be better served not posting this kind of reply.
bawolff 5y ago
You can still fire people for incompetence. Its also just as important to do root cause analysis with incompetence as malice. In the cop example, if everyone is turning off their camera because the interface is terrible and if you don't do it just right - that problem requires a very different solution than if they were intentionally turning it off. If you assume it must be malice the fixes will be wrong and not accomplish anything. That doesn't imply that malice is impossible, just that you shouldn't assume it without investigation.

koide 5y ago

You're misunderstanding the quote. It doesn't mean to never investigate, but to never start with the assumption that it is malice. You can complement it with the famous "trust, but verify" quote. Or with "giving the benefit of the doubt".

bitcharmer 5y ago
Nope, the quote is quite limited in terms of conveying the idea. It never says anything about verification or trust. It basically says: "never assume malice if it's possible that incompetence took place". That's pretty naïve way to see the world, especially in this day and age.
- bawolff 5y ago
  > never assume malice if it's possible that incompetence took place". Reading the quote literally i disagree. There is miles of difference between "adequately explained" and "possible" > That's pretty naïve way to see the world, especially in this day and age. I would actually argue the other way is naive. Assuming that all bad things that happen in the world are because of an evil person is what happens in movies and fairly tales. The real world is almost never that black and white.
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    Your sentiment is quite common among people raised in comfy, western parts of the world. I now live here and am astonished by the amount of adult, supposedly life-experienced people going into full shock that always comes with comments like: "I would never expect our government to do such thing!". It's time to grow up. I bet you think billionaires are good people and real justice takes place in the courts of law. Also, rich people face the same consequences as the rest of us. No?
    - samatman 5y ago
      Just so you understand clearly, when you lose the thread completely like this and start responding emotionally and personally, you've lost the argument and everyone watching knows it. You would be better served not posting this kind of reply.

bawolff 5y ago

You can still fire people for incompetence. Its also just as important to do root cause analysis with incompetence as malice. In the cop example, if everyone is turning off their camera because the interface is terrible and if you don't do it just right - that problem requires a very different solution than if they were intentionally turning it off. If you assume it must be malice the fixes will be wrong and not accomplish anything. That doesn't imply that malice is impossible, just that you shouldn't assume it without investigation.