3 ms·

I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The only thing we know is their

I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The only thing we know is their intent is never to benefit the majority of the people they are meant to be serving.

tedivm 2y ago
I don't think we need to pick between incompetence and malice here. I think both apply to most of their actions.
Jtsummers 2y ago
Select non-malicious but incompetent people to head departments, gives you plausible deniability when people claim that what's happening is malicious. "No, look, RFK Jr is sincere in his desire to help the American people." He's just really bad at it. Of course, that doesn't speak well to the judgment of the people at the top. They'll try and claim that RFK Jr did a fine job and it was the Deep State that caused the problems.
- brookst 2y ago
  Probably exactly what will happen. “Oh, with the dramatic reduction in vaccinations the American people would have been so much healthier, but the Deep State sprayed measles from chemtrails just to make us look bad”
marcosdumay 2y ago
At this point, I don't see why it should matter if it's criminal negligence or malice. They know what they are doing is illegal. Or, if they don't, it's because they are actively insisting on not learning it, what shouldn't make any difference.
throw0101c 2y ago
> I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The incompetent people were hired / appointed[1] as a form of malice against the "Deep State" (read: civil service) specifically, and government and civil society in general. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
jrflowers 2y ago
Hanlon’s razor is funny because it assumes that malicious actors can’t be incompetent and incompetent people can’t act maliciously. It is a fun logical trick that functions by pretending that huge swathes of the population don’t exist, like a sort of inverted cognitive behavioral therapy exercise
- kennysoona 2y ago
  I don't think it is assuming that malicious actors can’t be incompetent or that incompetent people can’t act maliciously, it's just asserting that incompetence is so, so much more widespread than actual malice.

tedivm 2y ago

I don't think we need to pick between incompetence and malice here. I think both apply to most of their actions.

Jtsummers 2y ago

Select non-malicious but incompetent people to head departments, gives you plausible deniability when people claim that what's happening is malicious. "No, look, RFK Jr is sincere in his desire to help the American people." He's just really bad at it. Of course, that doesn't speak well to the judgment of the people at the top. They'll try and claim that RFK Jr did a fine job and it was the Deep State that caused the problems.

brookst 2y ago
Probably exactly what will happen. “Oh, with the dramatic reduction in vaccinations the American people would have been so much healthier, but the Deep State sprayed measles from chemtrails just to make us look bad”

marcosdumay 2y ago

At this point, I don't see why it should matter if it's criminal negligence or malice. They know what they are doing is illegal. Or, if they don't, it's because they are actively insisting on not learning it, what shouldn't make any difference.

throw0101c 2y ago

> I normally defer to Hanlon's Razor, but with this administration it's 50/50 if their actions are due to incompetence or malice. The incompetent people were hired / appointed[1] as a form of malice against the "Deep State" (read: civil service) specifically, and government and civil society in general. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system

jrflowers 2y ago

Hanlon’s razor is funny because it assumes that malicious actors can’t be incompetent and incompetent people can’t act maliciously. It is a fun logical trick that functions by pretending that huge swathes of the population don’t exist, like a sort of inverted cognitive behavioral therapy exercise

kennysoona 2y ago
I don't think it is assuming that malicious actors can’t be incompetent or that incompetent people can’t act maliciously, it's just asserting that incompetence is so, so much more widespread than actual malice.