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
@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.
-
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
Also, if they start claiming they just didn’t know, mention — negligence, laziness, indifference.
@mattly -
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 @Homoevolutis0 I have had this exact thought about the real potential harms of the "never attribute to malice etc" trope many times, but never fleshed it out this well. Kudos!
-
@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.
@fishidwardrobe @mattly
Counterpoint to the LEGO example: they shut it down. As designed it allowed little to create Lego dicks. They had no way to effectively prevent this. The purpose of the system as it existed allowed for the creation of dicks.
The people in control, killed this system. It can no longer allow the creation of dicks. -
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's always been frustrating to have the implacable enemy hellbent on my immiseration, destruction, imprisonment & death be praised as saintly good actors with the best of intentions who have to have their backsides kissed more reverently than the pope by Hanlon's razor and its likely themselves ill-intentioned proponents. Then, of course, the same malefactors-in-the-middle use their dishonest smokescreens as pretexts to militate against recognition of the threats while still pending and harms once realised, and, of course, any and all efforts to flee the countries taken over and to blame the victims as usual.
-
@fishidwardrobe @mattly
Counterpoint to the LEGO example: they shut it down. As designed it allowed little to create Lego dicks. They had no way to effectively prevent this. The purpose of the system as it existed allowed for the creation of dicks.
The people in control, killed this system. It can no longer allow the creation of dicks. -
@fishidwardrobe @mattly
So, perhaps a modification:The purpose of a active system, is what it does
A clarifying addition?
-
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
solves itself by dropping the whole concept of foreseeable outcome, along with the fake certainty display required by "normality", overall, lack of intelligent gathering of perspectives in favour of facile single focus linear trajectory leaves plenty room for loud conviction, yet anyone daring to admit to doubt doesn't get near any boredroom full of conformist suits, I 'm seeing too many paralels with Asbestos Implementation & subsequent toxic legacy to pick evry flea out of da dead dog -
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 Grey’s Law: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”
-
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 Another way to frame this is that you actually talk about the issue/problem instead of jumping to insults and accusations.
I receive a lot of those insults because I have non-conforming opinions on verification (within the tech community anyway). But I appreciate when someone engages with me on the actual topic.
-
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
-
@fishidwardrobe @mattly
So, perhaps a modification:The purpose of a active system, is what it does
A clarifying addition?
-
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 So, can we now have a discussion of legal systems that are hellbent on figuring out intent unless they deal with poor people?
Because I’m really tired of rich and powerful getting a pass because “they didn’t intend to ruing y’all’s livelihood”.
-
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 a valid and dare I say important corollary for a time when the world is ruled by incompetent fascists.
-
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 you've got the wording slightly wrong, but in a way that matters.
"... which is *adequately* explained by stupidity."
In many scenarios where Hanlon's Razor is used to let people off the hook it's misapplied because stupidity is not an *adequate* explanation. -
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
