all 9 comments

[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Nah first assume conspiracy and pressure them to prove it's not

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Or ask who is pressuring them into their incompetence. Which is a form of conspiracy. Or, cat's paw.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

People who conspire love this mentality.

[–]Oyveygoyim 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

☝️

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah Machiavelli wrote this for princes and he was telling them to use that excuse when people suggest obvious conspiracies are conspiracies. Important context.

[–]SneakyBishop 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, and "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I strongly disagree. When you've hired people or placed people into positions on the basis that they are responsible for being competent, and things still go wrong, you assume malice. They are capable enough and communicated that they are capable enough that their screw ups can be interpreted as intent.

Fail to secure a roof directly overlooking a target you have responsibility to protect, and you are supposedly the best in the country at analyzing these things. That's intent. If it wasn't and you really are that dumb don't sign up for an expert's job.

If you are an anesthetist and you do something dumb fuckedly stupid you can be held liable. But once politics is allowed people are somehow allowed to be dumb. While the tolerance should be less because of an allowance of stupidity's cost on identifying and preventing corruption.