"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

A pattern of apparent stupidity that benefits the “stupid” is not adequately explained by mere stupidity.

The fact it benefits the “stupid”, and the “stupid” keeps doing it, despite the harm it’s going to others (because malice wouldn’t even be a question if there were no harm happening) is all the evidence you need to assume malice.

Even if they are truly ignorant of the harm that’s happening, willful ignorance is malice.

Additionally lying and claiming stupidity is a common defense for the malicious who get caught. The intelligently malicious will make sure that their actions can appear to be explained by stupidity.

No, the variables of “The stupidity is a pattern” and “The stupidity benefits the one being stupid” change the equation enough that you’re the stupid one if you think that “they don’t know that they’re doing, they’re just dumb” is sufficient explanation.

And you’re assuming that malice can’t pretend to be stupidity.

If there’s pattern of “stupidity” that just so happens to benefit the “stupid”, it’s very safe to assume malice.

Problem is, once it becomes a pattern, stupidity is no longer an adequate explanation.

A pattern of “stupidity” that benefits the “stupid” can be assumed to be malice, though.

Point number 1 is very interesting.

Egypt is the only place in the Roman Empire with a "full" urban infrastructure (with a large and culturally complex population centers) "in" the fully arid desert (the only greenery was provided by irrigation, both natural (annual floods) or artificial), which allowed commoner's trash to be preserved for archeologists in a way that couldn't manage elsewhere. Thus we got insights into the day to day life of a commoner in Roman Egypt in a way that we have never gotten anywhere else in the empire.

Mitch McConnell cementing obstructionism of Democratic leadership (and then blaming the Dems for failing to get anything done) as the GOP core strategy.