3 ms·

My point is that this is a bullshit quote that people use to shore up their opinion without actually having to think. If it didn't sound apocryphal to you, wou

by WayneDB 13y ago

My point is that this is a bullshit quote that people use to shore up their opinion without actually having to think. If it didn't sound apocryphal to you, would it really change the fact that Hanlon's/Heinlein's razor is nothing more than a non-scientific personal philosophical statement? In any case look at Wikipedia - other smart people are quoted saying the same thing that was attributed to Einstein: "...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent." — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1774) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor Malice does exist. It's just good old common sense to never rule it out.

eli 13y ago
OK. In this particular case I'd be very, very surprised if malice played any role. And assuming mistakes are malicious by default is more wrong than than the opposite, IMHO.
- WayneDB 13y ago
  Is it more the nature of the mistake or the trustworthyness of the Reuters organization that influences your opinion (or something else)? I'm not saying this wasn't a mistake, but knowledge of things like "Operation Mockingbird" do carry weight with me. Do you know about this? It's crazy... (There's very much out there to read on this but here's the summary.) "According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was able to constrain newspapers from reporting about certain events, including the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran (see: Operation Ajax) and Guatemala (see: Operation PBSUCCESS)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird If you're thinking that the mistake is such a small transgression that - "who would care?" Well...little tiny almost imperceivable things do matter, particularly to propagandists and to Pavlov's dog :) (Again - not saying that "I know" anything, but a non-infinitesimal possibility is definite IMO :)

by WayneDB 13y ago

eli 13y ago

OK. In this particular case I'd be very, very surprised if malice played any role. And assuming mistakes are malicious by default is more wrong than than the opposite, IMHO.

WayneDB 13y ago
Is it more the nature of the mistake or the trustworthyness of the Reuters organization that influences your opinion (or something else)? I'm not saying this wasn't a mistake, but knowledge of things like "Operation Mockingbird" do carry weight with me. Do you know about this? It's crazy... (There's very much out there to read on this but here's the summary.) "According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was able to constrain newspapers from reporting about certain events, including the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran (see: Operation Ajax) and Guatemala (see: Operation PBSUCCESS)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird If you're thinking that the mistake is such a small transgression that - "who would care?" Well...little tiny almost imperceivable things do matter, particularly to propagandists and to Pavlov's dog :) (Again - not saying that "I know" anything, but a non-infinitesimal possibility is definite IMO :)