why?

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate Hanlon’s Razor with a passion. It’s just a way to introduce plausible deniability for cases that do involve malice. Not that this stuff necessarily is malicious, I just think it’s dumb to rule out maliciousness any time it could be incompetence.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If I were to rewrite Hanlon’s Razor today, I would update it as so: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence or indifference.” Because yes, it does introduce plausible deniability; but most of the most harmful things in our modern world aren’t malice, but simply big companies caring less about you than about their own precious profits, or politicians caring less about their constituents than about their kickbacks and campaigns.

      But admittedly, the word “adequately” does do a lot of heavy lifting in the original and in my update, because I’d counter your (quite reasonable) objection with the corollary that if malice is evident, incompetence is no longer an adequate explanation.

      In general, though, I’ve had simply too much experience in this world to believe that there’s a grand conspiratorial plan behind anything awful people do these days.