the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
I think it's easier to say that Hanlon's razor is simply wrong, because the world has bad actors in it that do things maliciously.
I don't think they're functionally similar either.
-
I think it's easier to say that Hanlon's razor is simply wrong, because the world has bad actors in it that do things maliciously.
I don't think they're functionally similar either.
@bmaxv so many people have accepted it as gospel truth that it’s become a thought-terminating cliché
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
One might argue that Hanlon’s Razor itself is an incompetent/malicious thought-terminating cliché for dealing with rhetoric
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly This.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
I disagree, given that most of the time it *is* incompetence. I believe you should always go with the odds.
That said? There's no rule saying incompetence and malice are mutually exclusive. So the fact they are idiots doesn't let them off the hook…
-
One might argue that Hanlon’s Razor itself is an incompetent/malicious thought-terminating cliché for dealing with rhetoric
@mattly This might explain why the original aphorism bothered me. It's one thing to say "*don't assume* malice", and another to say "*never attribute* to malice". Why discourage people from using their best judgment? Maybe upon careful reflection I will decide it's malice after all.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly see also: The Purpose Of a System Is What It Does.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly well said
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly while I agree about the case of age verification, there's also the theory of stupidity by Bonhoeffer. When you're trying to predict the next move of an actor, it's crucial to get it right - are they malicious or stupid. When they are malicious, they will do something that will benefit them. When stupid they will do something that is random, likely that also includes shooting themselves in the foot. It's super important to get those sorted out. Stupid is worse than evil. Evil is predictable. Stupid is just stupid.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly It is usually better to focus on consequences rather than intentions, easier to infer.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly
Pivoting to “guilty until proven innocent” for some … -
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
The purpose of a system is what it does.
— Stafford Beer
The age verification systems (regardless of any specific implementation) can, and will be used beyond the stated reasons.
We need only to look at "Justice" systems that continue to exist despite their not contributing to actual justice, merely commercial incarceration. Often at the expense of justice.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly cf Rao's Hanlon's Dodge: https://ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-v-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly
Never attribute to malice or a conspiracy what can easily be explained by incompetence or the profit motive.
#Capitalism #Conspiracies -
@mattly
Never attribute to malice or a conspiracy what can easily be explained by incompetence or the profit motive.
#Capitalism #Conspiracies@Guillotine_Jones @mattly
The older I get, the more I am convinced that assuming a profit motive *first* will save time in 95%+ of cases. -
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly do not ignore that the most invested in technology of human history is easily copied by using anonymous accounts to query LLM and use the responses to train your own copy. Those mandatory identification should be evaluated as another attempt by the billionaires to control and restrict the access to wealth.
-
the thing about “never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence” is that it’s rat-fuckable
when there is functionally no difference between the two, engaging with someone as if they’re incompetent means accepting their frame, that what they’re ultimately trying to accomplish isn’t *bad*, they’re just going about it in a way with bad side-effects, and people use in bad-faith our good-faith willingness to treat them as incompetent to push their agendas
engaging with someone as if they’re malicious, on the other hand, means rejecting the harmful frame, recasting the argument in terms of “why are you trying to do this bad thing?”, and not quibbling about the details of why the thing is bad
these age-verification laws whose implementations are a form of category error is a good example; if you engage with a proponent of them with “well here’s why your implementation is bad” you’re tacitly approving the larger idea that surveliance is good, and you just disagree with the techniques; bad-faith actors use this
If instead you come back with “why are you trying to surveil everyone’s computer use? Why are you laying the groundwork to prevent people from using their own computers?”, you re-cast the frame. Sure, there are probably incompetent people who don’t realize the results of what they’re going to do, but casting the larger idea into question AND KEEPING IT IN QUESTION is the only effective path I’ve found to debating people on things like this
so, instead:
don’t ascribe to incompetence something that is functionally malicious
@mattly Can you please explain all this in simpler terms in different categories because it has substance but at 82 hard to absorb. Thanks.
-
The purpose of a system is what it does.
— Stafford Beer
The age verification systems (regardless of any specific implementation) can, and will be used beyond the stated reasons.
We need only to look at "Justice" systems that continue to exist despite their not contributing to actual justice, merely commercial incarceration. Often at the expense of justice.
@RyeNCode @mattly in a lot of ways this quote is even worse. "purpose" is motive, intent. that's not the same thing as what a system ends up doing. might as well say that system designers never make a mistake.
that said, i'm here to endorse what i believe was meant: that good intentions behind a bad system are worth nothing. "the purpose of a system isn't what it does, but it might as well be"
-
@RyeNCode @mattly in a lot of ways this quote is even worse. "purpose" is motive, intent. that's not the same thing as what a system ends up doing. might as well say that system designers never make a mistake.
that said, i'm here to endorse what i believe was meant: that good intentions behind a bad system are worth nothing. "the purpose of a system isn't what it does, but it might as well be"
@fishidwardrobe @mattly
The understanding I have is that original intentions mean nothing in the case of systems. What matters is what it does. That allowing such a system to continue is by definition allowing and authorizing that what the system does is it's purpose. If that wasn't the case, action would have been taken to correct it or kill it.Thus for any system that persists, to the entities that influence it's continued existence: what the system does must be desired by those entities. Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system.
Maybe I'm missing it, or muddying the waters.
Maybe it's to late on a Sunday. -
@fishidwardrobe @mattly
The understanding I have is that original intentions mean nothing in the case of systems. What matters is what it does. That allowing such a system to continue is by definition allowing and authorizing that what the system does is it's purpose. If that wasn't the case, action would have been taken to correct it or kill it.Thus for any system that persists, to the entities that influence it's continued existence: what the system does must be desired by those entities. Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system.
Maybe I'm missing it, or muddying the waters.
Maybe it's to late on a Sunday.@RyeNCode @mattly
> The understanding I have is that original intentions mean nothing in the case of systems. What matters is what it does.agreed. what i said.
> Otherwise they would have changed, removed or replaced that system.
that's a stretch. they might not understand what the system is doing (disagreeing about the effects of a system is normal); they might not actually have power to fix it, for example because the ultimate effects of a system are soft.
there's a story about how the lego world mmo was (eventually, reluctantly) shut down because they couldn't stop folks building dicks. you might say the purpose of the system was to build dicks; that's what it DID. but the designers couldn't stop it.
just two reasons why they might not be able to change a system.
