Unfortunately I think there is enough track record that the administration no longer has benefit of doubt from Hanlon's razor. e.g.

>“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."

sauce: https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-v...

▲

timr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So basically, you don't know, and you're violating Hanlon's razor because you think its wrong this time.

The fact that this administration routinely implements policies of all types in this way suggests that rambunctious implementation is the default explanation for any particular outcome.

▲

dathos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Violating Hanlon’s razor like it’s some universal always true rule?

	▲	timr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A razor is a default presumption, yes. It allows you to "shave off" unlikely explanations. When you find yourself violating a philosophical razor, it's a strong indication that you should question your priors.

▲

Havoc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>you don't know

Neither do you.

Hanlon's razor is a good baseline when you have no information pointing to either option.

But when you have an administration that climbs onto a podium and announces they want to traumatize people, that's a pretty direct admission of malice in my books. You're free to conclude we're just seeing a string of repeated stupidity, but frankly I think it's incredibly naive to still given them the benefit of doubt.