All other things being equal, malice requires more assumptions than stupidity.
A pattern of malicious behavior, clear motive for malicious behavior, and indications that stupidity is unlikely all break the leading clause.
Ironically, I think people are just too stupid in general to remember to evaluate actions in context... because they've been deliberately misled by the malicious.
They've said for years that we should never attribute to malice what stupidity will adequately explain. Well I'm pretty well done with that. The end result remains the same.
Of course, then you got that Jungian(?) bit of analysis that Jordan Peterson sometimes mentions: If you can't determine the motive for a person's actions, assume it was to produce the outcome that occurred and work backwards.
Given that he's one of the ones doing the misleading, I think we can safely assume malicious intent on his part.
All other things being equal, malice requires more assumptions than stupidity.
A pattern of malicious behavior, clear motive for malicious behavior, and indications that stupidity is unlikely all break the leading clause.
Ironically, I think people are just too stupid in general to remember to evaluate actions in context... because they've been deliberately misled by the malicious.
Of course, then you got that Jungian(?) bit of analysis that Jordan Peterson sometimes mentions: If you can't determine the motive for a person's actions, assume it was to produce the outcome that occurred and work backwards.