It's less a "neat tautology" and more a demonstration that Hanlon's razor isn't as useful in this situation one might think.

It doesn't. It's an attempt to make both sides of hanlons razor equal racism with no proof that either side is such.

Stupidity = racism Malice = racism

Sigh. No, it doesn't mean that both sides of Hanlon's razor equal racism. It does mean that Hanlon's razor doesn't rule out racism. Hanlon's razor isn't about proof. It's about recognizing that one often projects intent onto circumstances where none exists. While racism can fuel malice, it is entirely possible for racism to exist without any malice.

We'll have to agree to disagree on your first point. Though...

> Hanlon's razor isn't about proof. It's about recognizing that one often projects intent onto circumstances where none exists.

Exactly. That is my point. I'm not denying that racism can exist with or without malice, though I'd argue intent has to play a part. My point is based on the information from the article you cannot determine the interaction was racist and calling it so is projecting an intention on it that you cannot say exists.

You might argue that intent has to play a part, but it doesn't. Maybe just accept that you're interpreting meaning that is not there.