Your opinion on this subject has already been noted multiple times in multiple threads. Have a nice day. 
Anyone who regards Pinker as the intellectual peer of the actual legitimate anthropologist is the fucking moron.
I’ll take Graeber’s work against Pinker’s pseudoscience evo-psych just-so stories any day of the week. Pinker just straight-up gets shit wrong about what he’s talking about,(whether mistakes or lies, who can tell) like characterizing several agriculturalist cultures as H-Gs, or believing iron maidens and choke pears were real medieval torture devices.
Having read a little of both Pinker and Graeber, I’m definitely voting for Graeber as the more persuasive.
And AFAICT you haven’t even tried to refute it.
Yeah, as has been said before, if someone’s actions have the same effect as someone who was trolling, they get treated the same. The mods here are pretty wise in taking this approach IMO. And there’s also the golden rule of “don’t be a jerk” to fall back on, so that you aren’t painted in a corner of having to endure someone toxic because they aren’t technically a troll.
Given the repeated conflicts caused by Magiver, I suspect this is a poster on borrowed time, but who the fuck knows. As I said, I’ve had him on ignore for years, and I’d forget about him except that I still see his name come up as a problem for other people, and I think it’s helpful to try to explain to anyone who hasn’t experienced his particular asshattery exactly what a pain he is.
Occam’s and Hanlan’s Razors are certainly not a final arbiter, but they are a good way to define the Null Hypothesis, and so establish which side has the burden of proof. If you are going to argue for an explanation that requires additional elements, in particular malice, then you are going to have to provide evidence that those additional elements are necessary to explain the observed phenomenon.
Once again - humans are systems, not single phenomena. And their interactions are even more complicated phenomena. Applying tools for solving simple syllogisms and logic problems to them just does not work.
Although if I were to go down that route, I’d point at the repeated, constant effect of this supposed pure stupidity alone and argue ex fructibus eorum and job’s a good un. Because pure stupidity doesn’t explain the constant negative effect.
Look at an actual pure stupid poster, one of our regular Old Man Yells At Clouds types - acey comes to mind - they get people annoyed at their stupidity frequently, but not always riled up the same way every time. Malice is the missing element there.
But like I said: Occam’s the wrong tool for the job, anyway. And Hanlon’s just wrong about people.
I never liked Hanlon’s razor. I don’t think it’s useful or accurate and I think people mistake pithiness for wisdom and think just because you give something a cool name it’s a rule.