Malicious Compliance

19689 readers

1 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:

[email protected] [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

3298

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

submitted 2 years ago by minimar to c/maliciouscompliance

329 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] 2dollarsim 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] queermunist 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 points 2 years 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 2 points 2 years 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.