3 ms·

I think it communicates maliciousness not idiocy

by voxl 7mo ago

cheschire 7mo ago
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- Applejinx 7mo ago
  This gets complicated when the malicious have also read the saying and intentionally feign stupidity, but that's just chaos politics.
- voxl 7mo ago
  Keep word: adequately. This is not adequately explained by stupidity.
- chris_wot 7mo ago
  It does occur to me that you can be both malicious and stupid at the same time.
  - euroderf 7mo ago
    "Ripped from the headlines!"
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- davorak 7mo ago
  > adequately explained by stupidity What is the adequate explanation via stupidity in this case though? If there is one that sure maybe we should lean that way without further evidence.
- Larrikin 7mo ago
  It feels like lately there are people committing malice knowingly trying to justify it as just a joke or unknowingly doing something from stupidity to make it more palatable to people that will then excuse them. I think this rule may have always been fake when anyone with even a little bit of power did it.
- TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
  I've never understood why this is taken seriously. Law has clear concepts of bad faith and mens rea, and this implies they're irrelevant. Of course it's unproductive to start from assumptions of bad faith, which is a fair point. Bad faith requires evidence of intent, stupidity doesn't. But there are still situations where bad faith is a reasonable hypothesis to test. And some negative actors are clever enough to operate deliberately inside a zone of plausible deniability.
amirhirsch 7mo ago
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If you are the editor of Gray’s Anatomy, incompetence is malice.
- SecretDreams 7mo ago
  > incompetence is malice A subtle distinction, but I'd flip this as "malice is incompetence".
  - entropicdrifter 7mo ago
    Both ring true, in this case.

I think it communicates maliciousness not idiocy

by voxl 7mo ago

I think it communicates maliciousness not idiocy

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Applejinx 7mo ago
This gets complicated when the malicious have also read the saying and intentionally feign stupidity, but that's just chaos politics.
voxl 7mo ago
Keep word: adequately. This is not adequately explained by stupidity.
chris_wot 7mo ago
It does occur to me that you can be both malicious and stupid at the same time.
- euroderf 7mo ago
  "Ripped from the headlines!"
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
davorak 7mo ago
> adequately explained by stupidity What is the adequate explanation via stupidity in this case though? If there is one that sure maybe we should lean that way without further evidence.
Larrikin 7mo ago
It feels like lately there are people committing malice knowingly trying to justify it as just a joke or unknowingly doing something from stupidity to make it more palatable to people that will then excuse them. I think this rule may have always been fake when anyone with even a little bit of power did it.
TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
I've never understood why this is taken seriously. Law has clear concepts of bad faith and mens rea, and this implies they're irrelevant. Of course it's unproductive to start from assumptions of bad faith, which is a fair point. Bad faith requires evidence of intent, stupidity doesn't. But there are still situations where bad faith is a reasonable hypothesis to test. And some negative actors are clever enough to operate deliberately inside a zone of plausible deniability.

amirhirsch 7mo ago

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If you are the editor of Gray’s Anatomy, incompetence is malice.

SecretDreams 7mo ago
> incompetence is malice A subtle distinction, but I'd flip this as "malice is incompetence".
- entropicdrifter 7mo ago
  Both ring true, in this case.