this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
1416 points (97.7% liked)

Malicious Compliance

21103 readers
2 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.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

[email protected] [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 86 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Doesn't that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn't this a first amendment violation?

[–] [email protected] 61 points 2 years ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Fucking hate this. There is a local public meeting that starts with a prayer to the Evangelical God in Jesus’s name that I’m forced to attend because of my job. I hate being essentially compelled to participate in prayer. The SCOTUS precedent supporting this is 100000000% Christian bias.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The SCOTUS precedent

Don't worry they don't believe in Precedent anymore. You just need to grease their wheels. I hear it's cheaper than you think.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

It's relatively cheap for their masters, but they won't buck the leash that got them into their position

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

I would start invoicing people for your time until you get a legal cease and desist. Then sue them, just because they accepted responsibility.

Make it cost them money.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You could counter with a Baha'i prayer. They are still an Abrahamic religion, and they have literally hundreds of prayers for practically every topic.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

I don’t want any prayer. It’s coerced religion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And you can't disrupt the meeting by interrupting the prayer until they kick you out, because then presumably your employer would fire you, I assume? 'Cause if not, you should definitely ruin their motherfucking christofascist bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

Interesting. I'm going to be petty and start defacing my money.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

Required ceremonial deism, even worse, yuck!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

The worst part is that for the people making these policies it really isn't religious, just a thing they can trick followers with.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 years ago

Hahaha! They don’t give a fuck

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Look at the dollar bill. America has never given two shits about the separation of church and state.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

In god we trust was added in the cold war because the old saying may have promoted something other than capitalism

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

'E pluribus unum' was pretty good, but I liked 'mind your business' too.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago

Fuck You. Got mine.

Is pretty on point for the current dogma.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, it was added during the cold war because the commies were seen as godless heathens and the religious assholes in charge seized the opportunity to push their brainwashing on us using "do the opposite of the commies" as an excuse. There was never any legitimate concern about "e pluribus unum."

It's the same story as why they reflexively oppose almost anything proposed by a Democrat today.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Which is a more detailed version of what I said.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The way it was worded basically said that it had to be the national motto, thereby not making it a religious text to bypass the concerns you mentioned.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What I don't understand is how the national motto can be a religious one without breaking the first amendment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

It hasn't reached the Supreme Court for a decision, but lower courts have basically said that it's not establing a religion because it's used in a secular and patriotic fashion. (My interpretation of my understanding of the ruling).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States

You can blame 1956 Cold War era Congress (red scare) and Eisenhower.