How Stupid Do You Have to Be?
The question arises: How stupid do you have to be to make excuses for Republicans?
It's not actually a new question, but, as such, political correctness and sensitivity needs have long disrupted frank discussion of what is actually wrong with people who made excuses along the way.
But this is how stupid things have gotten:
Think of it this way: Not only do Republicans want to change the policy, they want to erase the history of what has come before. It's not just that they would follow other advice, as such, but that they would try to destroy the record of prior advice.
And they told us, at least thirty years ago, what they were trying to do; Republicans wanted government weak enough to easily murder it. Now, they're moving in for the kill.
This is how stupid you have to be in order to play along:
The thing is, nobody should be surprised. In fact, the big question in that context would be a juxtaposition of sinister or stupid. After all, these people are, apparently, complete idiots who don't know what they're doing. Or else they are villains who know perfectly well what they're doing. Even reporters Legum and Crosby hint at the stupidity in their headline describing a "botched DEI purge".
But what if it's not really a botch?
In recent years, some have described "Hanlon's Razor", a variation on a common theme variously attributed in literature and history. More formally, Hanlon's Razor purports to parse what in rhetoric and discourse is described as the Principle of Charity.
Generally speaking, malice is considered worse than error, so the principle suggests receiving dubious statements as charitably as possible.
Comparatively, the danger of Hanlon's Razor is in its populist appeal; if we ought not attribute to malice what is reasonably explained by incompetence, there remains a question of how malicious we are if the incompetence or error, as such, is our own.
However, the hazard of the Principle of Charity is found at its outer boundary, when error is so prominent as to exceed the opprobrious threshold of malice¹.
At some point, one must be a fool in order to keep pretending that manner of charity.
One in eighteen is describes an error rate of just under 94.5%, and an accuracy rate just over 5.5%.
What would Ockham say to Hanlon? Is it more parsimonious to describe failing seventeen times out of eighteen attempts, or to suggest that the whole point was to wreck the one, with the other seventeen as acceptable damage?
Remember, the one "DEIA" document on the list "details federal and state legal precedent", i.e., what they are unable to overcome by any legitimate means. And they want the record of its existence destroyed.
Consider the conservative columnist scolding liberals↗ for refusing to understand what makes Trump formidable, and suggesting they "think a little more deeply about the enduring sources of his appeal". If it's an abysmal prospect, it's because what columnist Stephens recommends is a leap into an abyss; the enduring sources of Trump's appeal are supremacist, authoritarian attitudes and the thrill of empowerment people feel in behaving abusively. Thinking more deeply about the durable values of conservative appeal actually suggests a potentially shocking possibility, a recursive antisociality, a world-mastering² assertion to require dysfunction. It starts to read like an ontology of sadism.
Okay, it's not shocking. It's just stupid.
One thing that will always remain unclear is an absolute boundary, that at a given point in history it absolutely should have been obvious. By 2015, though, when Trump rode down his golden escalator, the only non-supportive reason, the last frontier of justification, for shielding conservative voters from their own reputation was an abject faith, craven and not naïve, that simply needed these people and principles to not really be so awful.
At some point, it would be helpful to know just how many times people are expected to fall for the grift, but the "right to work" argument, for instance, from people who detested the union mentality, or some such, never really sought a better condition for those workers. And eventually it just became impossible to believe they didn't notice. Or, more bluntly, one thing that presently remains unclear is just how stupid we are supposed to believe these people are.
How long ago was Speaker Boehner? His failed budget bill? Failed fiscal cliff bill? Failed border bill?
It's one thing to wonder at Republican voters, but that doesn't say anything about the proverbial everybody else. There is no absolute boundary, so it's hard to say just when everybody else should have noticed. But the way of things is that it becomes harder and harder to believe middle-road excuses and pretenses.
So, yeah. I mean, sure, ¿Why? but still, that eventually leads back to wondering how stupid you have to be. Pride might compel some to cling desperately, but the part where the rest of us are supposed to pretend the behavior is believable is just stupid.
____________________
Notes:
Legum, Judd and Rebecca Crosby. "In botched DEI purge, OSHA trashes workplace safety guidelines". Popular Information. 17 February 2025. Popular.info. 17 February 2025. https://popular.info/p/in-botched-dei-purge-osha-trashes
Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Oakland: University of California Press, 1993.
The question arises: How stupid do you have to be to make excuses for Republicans?
It's not actually a new question, but, as such, political correctness and sensitivity needs have long disrupted frank discussion of what is actually wrong with people who made excuses along the way.
But this is how stupid things have gotten:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has ordered the digital and physical destruction of 18 publications on workplace safety practices, according to an internal February 7 email obtained by Popular Information. The email says the publications have been removed from the OSHA website and tells staff that any physical copies should be "disposed of or recycled."
(Legum and Crosby↱)
(Legum and Crosby↱)
Think of it this way: Not only do Republicans want to change the policy, they want to erase the history of what has come before. It's not just that they would follow other advice, as such, but that they would try to destroy the record of prior advice.
And they told us, at least thirty years ago, what they were trying to do; Republicans wanted government weak enough to easily murder it. Now, they're moving in for the kill.
This is how stupid you have to be in order to play along:
For example, one of the purged publications is "OSHA Best Practices for Protecting EMS Responders During Treatment and Transport of Victims of Hazardous Substance Releases." Popular Information was able to obtain an archived version of the publication through the Internet Archive. The 104-page document — a collaboration between dozens of government agencies and NGOs — was published in 2009 to detail the steps "employers need to take to protect their EMS responders from becoming additional victims while on the front line of medical response." DEIA issues are not discussed.
On page 94 of the publication, however, the words "diversity" and "diverse" are used in a context that has nothing to do with race or gender. The publication notes there is a "diversity of state-specific certification, training, and regulatory requirements" for "EMS agencies" and "diverse conditions under which EMS responders could work." Similarly, on page 96, the publication notes, "EMS responders are a diverse group" and "risks vary with their primary and secondary roles."
"Guidelines for Nursing Homes: Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders," is a 44-page publication released in 2009. It provides "recommendations for nursing home employers to help reduce the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in their facilities." It has nothing to do with DEIA. On page 10, however, it notes that "development of MSDs may be related to genetic causes, gender, age, and other factors." The single use of the word "gender" appears to have flagged the publication for deletion and destruction.
Another purged publication, "Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respiratory Protection Standard," contains the sentence, "the new computer software reflects the concept of government leadership through collaboration with diverse technical organizations." It has nothing to do with DEIA.
Only one of the 18 publications, "Restroom Access for Transgender Workers, Best Practices," appears to have anything to do with DEIA issues. That publication details federal and state legal precedent that recognizes "the core principle that employees should be allowed to use the restrooms that correspond to their gender identity." All of the targeted publications, however, include a keyword related to diversity or gender.
(Boldface accent added)
On page 94 of the publication, however, the words "diversity" and "diverse" are used in a context that has nothing to do with race or gender. The publication notes there is a "diversity of state-specific certification, training, and regulatory requirements" for "EMS agencies" and "diverse conditions under which EMS responders could work." Similarly, on page 96, the publication notes, "EMS responders are a diverse group" and "risks vary with their primary and secondary roles."
"Guidelines for Nursing Homes: Ergonomics for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders," is a 44-page publication released in 2009. It provides "recommendations for nursing home employers to help reduce the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in their facilities." It has nothing to do with DEIA. On page 10, however, it notes that "development of MSDs may be related to genetic causes, gender, age, and other factors." The single use of the word "gender" appears to have flagged the publication for deletion and destruction.
Another purged publication, "Small Entity Compliance Guide for the Respiratory Protection Standard," contains the sentence, "the new computer software reflects the concept of government leadership through collaboration with diverse technical organizations." It has nothing to do with DEIA.
Only one of the 18 publications, "Restroom Access for Transgender Workers, Best Practices," appears to have anything to do with DEIA issues. That publication details federal and state legal precedent that recognizes "the core principle that employees should be allowed to use the restrooms that correspond to their gender identity." All of the targeted publications, however, include a keyword related to diversity or gender.
(Boldface accent added)
The thing is, nobody should be surprised. In fact, the big question in that context would be a juxtaposition of sinister or stupid. After all, these people are, apparently, complete idiots who don't know what they're doing. Or else they are villains who know perfectly well what they're doing. Even reporters Legum and Crosby hint at the stupidity in their headline describing a "botched DEI purge".
But what if it's not really a botch?
†
In recent years, some have described "Hanlon's Razor", a variation on a common theme variously attributed in literature and history. More formally, Hanlon's Razor purports to parse what in rhetoric and discourse is described as the Principle of Charity.
Generally speaking, malice is considered worse than error, so the principle suggests receiving dubious statements as charitably as possible.
Comparatively, the danger of Hanlon's Razor is in its populist appeal; if we ought not attribute to malice what is reasonably explained by incompetence, there remains a question of how malicious we are if the incompetence or error, as such, is our own.
However, the hazard of the Principle of Charity is found at its outer boundary, when error is so prominent as to exceed the opprobrious threshold of malice¹.
At some point, one must be a fool in order to keep pretending that manner of charity.
†
One in eighteen is describes an error rate of just under 94.5%, and an accuracy rate just over 5.5%.
What would Ockham say to Hanlon? Is it more parsimonious to describe failing seventeen times out of eighteen attempts, or to suggest that the whole point was to wreck the one, with the other seventeen as acceptable damage?
Remember, the one "DEIA" document on the list "details federal and state legal precedent", i.e., what they are unable to overcome by any legitimate means. And they want the record of its existence destroyed.
†
Consider the conservative columnist scolding liberals↗ for refusing to understand what makes Trump formidable, and suggesting they "think a little more deeply about the enduring sources of his appeal". If it's an abysmal prospect, it's because what columnist Stephens recommends is a leap into an abyss; the enduring sources of Trump's appeal are supremacist, authoritarian attitudes and the thrill of empowerment people feel in behaving abusively. Thinking more deeply about the durable values of conservative appeal actually suggests a potentially shocking possibility, a recursive antisociality, a world-mastering² assertion to require dysfunction. It starts to read like an ontology of sadism.
†
Okay, it's not shocking. It's just stupid.
One thing that will always remain unclear is an absolute boundary, that at a given point in history it absolutely should have been obvious. By 2015, though, when Trump rode down his golden escalator, the only non-supportive reason, the last frontier of justification, for shielding conservative voters from their own reputation was an abject faith, craven and not naïve, that simply needed these people and principles to not really be so awful.
At some point, it would be helpful to know just how many times people are expected to fall for the grift, but the "right to work" argument, for instance, from people who detested the union mentality, or some such, never really sought a better condition for those workers. And eventually it just became impossible to believe they didn't notice. Or, more bluntly, one thing that presently remains unclear is just how stupid we are supposed to believe these people are.
How long ago was Speaker Boehner? His failed budget bill? Failed fiscal cliff bill? Failed border bill?
It's one thing to wonder at Republican voters, but that doesn't say anything about the proverbial everybody else. There is no absolute boundary, so it's hard to say just when everybody else should have noticed. But the way of things is that it becomes harder and harder to believe middle-road excuses and pretenses.
So, yeah. I mean, sure, ¿Why? but still, that eventually leads back to wondering how stupid you have to be. Pride might compel some to cling desperately, but the part where the rest of us are supposed to pretend the behavior is believable is just stupid.
____________________
Notes:
¹ To wit: Yes, we get it, you're not trying to do harm …
² cf., Riesebrodt, 18-19: "… they seek to force their ideal of a just social order onto the world"; also, a comparison of world-fleeing and world-mastering reactions, with the latter including religious movements, social and protest movements, secret societies, and political parties. See also, #623↑ above.)
― … you just stepped in it, fell down the hole, dug in deeper, attacked everyone who tried to throw you a rope, and instead of climbing out you now insist it never happened and you're not actually down in a hole, and that's why you're the real victim, here.
― … you just can't help yourself.
― … you're just that stupid.
― … you just can't help yourself.
― … you're just that stupid.
(… it's not actually harm.)
(… it never happened.)
(… everybody else forced you.)
(… it never happened.)
(… everybody else forced you.)
² cf., Riesebrodt, 18-19: "… they seek to force their ideal of a just social order onto the world"; also, a comparison of world-fleeing and world-mastering reactions, with the latter including religious movements, social and protest movements, secret societies, and political parties. See also, #623↑ above.)
Legum, Judd and Rebecca Crosby. "In botched DEI purge, OSHA trashes workplace safety guidelines". Popular Information. 17 February 2025. Popular.info. 17 February 2025. https://popular.info/p/in-botched-dei-purge-osha-trashes
Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. Oakland: University of California Press, 1993.
