I’d say more “select from” than “churn out”. It’s not about generating a hypothesis, it’s about having a collection of hypotheses and deciding which should be your default until additional evidence is provided.

Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and “adequately” is pulling at least as much weight as “never”. If stupidity becomes a less adequate explanation, nothing stops you from considering malice as an alternative.

People use things wrong all the time, sometimes the vast majority of the time (e.g. “literally”). Just because people use a concept pseudologically doesn’t make it intrinsically pseudological.

But razors aren’t supposed to be logic in the first place. They’re not objective analytical tools to arrive at a conclusion, because they weren’t designed to be. They’re framing tools to help establish an initial hypothesis.

Occam’s razor doesn’t claim that the simplest explanation is true, it merely says it’s the most practical assumption, all else being equal. If additional data provides more support for a more complicated explanation, Occam’s really doesn’t require you to cling to the simpler one.

Similarly Hanlon’s razor doesn’t claim that stupidity is universally a better explanation than malice, only that is the most practical assumption, all else being equal. It does not require you to ignore patterns of behavior that shift the likelihood toward malice.

What system accomplishes that?

Of what happening?

“Capitalism breeds innovation”

I watch basically everything that isn’t music or advanced mathematics at 2x speed. YouTubers talk so slowly.

I know what it says, but “authoritarian communist” is an oxymoron, like “carnivorous vegan”. They may call themselves communists, they may be members of a party that calls itself “communist”, but authoritarianism cannot coexist with a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Sloppy editing does not change that fact, and there is extensive literature and commentary providing clarification.

I dunno, that sounds like a fast track to being the subject of a murder mystery. I think I’m good.

You’ve never heard of the Trans Siberian Railroad Orchestra?

Being an ethical person precludes most ways to get rich. It’s a much longer process when you’re determined not to exploit people or the environment.

Uh, no. I just have the ability to look up definitions. The word means what it means

Google “ferengi rule 34”

I dunno, SpongeBob occupies a sizeable fraction of successful memes

Not really, no. Words have definitions. It’s not a "semantic argument’ to clarify the definition of a word. It’s not “no true Scotsman” either, that’s when you define a group by some unrelated or incidental quality. What I’ve referred to is the definition of a tankie. The quality described is neither unrelated nor incidental.

Well, the tanks are replaced with ICE vehicles

It’s not that weird if you remember money

The theory I’ve read is that lots of people are into a bit of the taboo/forbidden partner aspect of an attraction they have toward a real person in their life: their neighbor, platonic friend, co-worker, etc. But most of these connections don’t really feel all that taboo when it’s someone else, so the “step-” angle is just a generic stand in that carries the forbidden aspect without going too far.

Clearly they meant Non-Alcoholic

By “misspent”, are you referring to those deposits?

“Every anecdote that challenges my biases is a lie”.

Bad faith bullshit