When Should We Assume Ill Intent?

Is malice the most likely explanation for questionable actors?

On March 14, my friend Pete Quinones released an interesting article on his Substack. In it, he explored an issue that has been rolling around in my head for quite a while. He says:

Here’s one that I really fucking hate. It’s commonly used by people who see themselves as above the riff raff, too erudite to engage in such trivialities. It’s Hanlons’ Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Anyway, if you are a proponent of Hanlon’s Razor, one who says, for example, that State employees, elites, whomever, are just stupid; wouldn’t they at least bungle their way into doing something that improves our lives and increases our liberties at least once in a while? Or how about just once?! This ludicrous axiom that pseudo-intellectuals toss in your direction like a Dickens villain flinging a farthing at an orphan needs to be jettisoned from conversation. It doesn’t make you sound intelligent; it doesn’t raise you above the average muzhik, more often than not you sound like someone who is more worried about their reputation than truth. Stop it already!

I couldn’t have put it better myself. I love Pete’s Dickens imagery. Go subscribe to his Substack if you haven’t already.

Anyways, in this bonus episode, I discuss whether or not it is prudent to give certain popular figures the benefit of the doubt when they push US State Department narratives.

This full bonus episode of Liberty Weekly is embedded below for premium Substack Members. Or you can watch it a la carte for LBC on Odysee.