Hanlon’s does tend to break down when one of the two political parties in your country have more or less devolved into theocratic fascists, though. Especially when they’ve got their plans published online, and they’re clearly quite evil, and they’re following said plans disturbingly closely.
The problem is, a lot of the people who support these people are just… Stupid
I have known many a coworker who talked about voting for trump and every time I engage them in conversation about it I realize all their genuine beliefs are against the GOPs policies entirely. They just are scared of things they don’t understand and like them talking about how scary minorities are.
They aren’t choosing to be stupid as part of some evil plot, they’re just ignorant and don’t want to change because they don’t think they should have to.
Which is why I’m saying it isn’t malicious on their part. Calling it malicious implies that they are ignorant out of spite. There are people like that, and many people who are malicious in taking advantage of them, but my 70 year old coworker who just doesn’t understand LGBT people and hasn’t talked to enough black people in their life isn’t malicious, just purely ignorant and scared of change.
If they’ve lived SEVENTY YEARS and haven’t come to realize that black people and lgbtq+ people are JUST normal people trying to live a moderately different life…
Then yes, yes they are maliciously stupid. Ignorance eventually becomes a choice after so many oportunities have been passed up.
I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.
I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.
Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.
Hanlon’s Razor is my favorite rule for this very reason, because I’m way too quick to do this.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Hanlon’s does tend to break down when one of the two political parties in your country have more or less devolved into theocratic fascists, though. Especially when they’ve got their plans published online, and they’re clearly quite evil, and they’re following said plans disturbingly closely.
The problem is, a lot of the people who support these people are just… Stupid
I have known many a coworker who talked about voting for trump and every time I engage them in conversation about it I realize all their genuine beliefs are against the GOPs policies entirely. They just are scared of things they don’t understand and like them talking about how scary minorities are.
Then they’re maliciously stupid. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
They aren’t choosing to be stupid as part of some evil plot, they’re just ignorant and don’t want to change because they don’t think they should have to.
Nobody chooses to be stupid. It is a reflection of how little thought they’ve put in to it.
Which is why I’m saying it isn’t malicious on their part. Calling it malicious implies that they are ignorant out of spite. There are people like that, and many people who are malicious in taking advantage of them, but my 70 year old coworker who just doesn’t understand LGBT people and hasn’t talked to enough black people in their life isn’t malicious, just purely ignorant and scared of change.
If they’ve lived SEVENTY YEARS and haven’t come to realize that black people and lgbtq+ people are JUST normal people trying to live a moderately different life…
Then yes, yes they are maliciously stupid. Ignorance eventually becomes a choice after so many oportunities have been passed up.
I’d argue Hanlon’s razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.
I’d recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it’s better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.
Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it’s no longer worth your time to argue with them.