Malicious Compliance

19254 readers

5 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

2449

Businesses can discriminate against their customers? Alright then... (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by minimar@lemmy.world to c/maliciouscompliance@lemmy.world

360 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Actually! There was no website. It was all made up.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the link. I just read the article. So the Supreme Court made an all-encompassing ruling based on a lawsuit filed over an easily-verifiable-as-fabricated story. It would be bizarro shit if we didn't already know the court's just doing exactly what they were put there to do. It's completely fucked up.

[–] 2dollarsim@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for pointing that out! It's the most obvious psy-op yet and people still aren't catching on.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn't want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are...

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn’t want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals.

An argument I've seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary's influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn't put it past them.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People's Republic of California then the Court could just say "no but not like that tho" and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.