642
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
642 points (100.0% liked)
Malicious Compliance
21547 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:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So in your mindset, there's zero point where killing is "justifiable"?
I'm legitimately asking here.
In a perfect world, people would respect boundaries, not start war, or genocides to further their own beliefs.
What do you propose people facing extinction do? Parlay?
Troll? You haven't answered either of my questions? Lmao. Not everything is black and white my guy.
Again, I am legitimately curious what your opinions about this are.
You can sling insults all you want. It doesn't further your argument in any legitimate way.
I am not disingenuous in asking them.
I'm not even necessarily talking about the current situation here.
I'm asking you, where your line in the sand is.
If someone was in your home, threatening your life, or your loved one's lives, and they absolutely were not empty threats, would violence to the point of killing be "justified"?
For example, should the Ukrainians not defend their sovereignty, on their own soil, because killing at all is immoral?
You came at this with a black and white statement, but there are nuances to the world that shape the decisions outside of a binary "they killed/didn't kill"
If one side kills 100 for each one of their own killed there's a big difference. Other factors to consider is when your land is blocked off from the outside world by land, sea and air and being routinely invaded. The Geneva convention says there is a right to resist occupation on top of that which Israel did sign.
Jesus, those are some thoroughly piss-soaked chips you've got there, petal.
Your ability to admit you don't understand it is a big step. Now you just need to address your previous commenters in the same light, with the questions you've been asked and are too afraid to answer. We believe in you, champ.
Ahhhh, I get it. No instances of me cheering at the death of others, so the other party has to fake the argument. Petty, and a pity.
Come now, you've started discourse with others, you really ought to answer their questions.
Saying that killing is morally wrong, or saying that an individual is hateful, is a nothing sentence. It's not an opening of discourse or planet brained insight. When asked a follow up, to elucidate, you assume the position of actors and extol your own virtue by putting down the rest.
It's nout but antagonism for the purpose of whysoever a troll would do anything. Getting jollies off by calling high horse, or moral corruption.
You make playing in the shit look like fun, and then feign upset when others join you.
Come now. When people say strawmanning, they tend to mean that someone has taken the time to at least turn a pile of straw into the shape of a man but you can't even be arsed to do that. Just standing next to it and calling it a man is even sadder.
You started too many chats and feel like you need to argue them all but you can't even remember who said what.
"Anyone not fighting my corner is for the murder of innocents" Sounds a bit brain-rotty, fella. A tad corrupt.
I'm sure no one here wishes that anyone HAD to die. Most ethical systems throughout history have a moral justification for killing, if the death will prevent further killing of innocent people. If it's immoral to kill someone actively murdering children and about to murder more, are you saying it would be preferable to let the children be killed?
You aren't clever, trying to say we shouldn't kill Nazis in a war against Nazis.
This isn't rhetorical, tell me. If someone is about to shoot a child, and the only way we could stop them is through military action, what would you do?
You almost have a point but to get there you have to ignore the entire actual context of the conflict. It's not just killing because of killing, there's an entire ongoing expansionist colonial project making one party clearly the aggressor.
You are bad at trolling.
No, the personal attacks, refusing to answer questions, derailing the discussion, assuming bad faith, withholding your true viewpoint (aka bad faith argument). These are all troll behaviors, if not intentionally being an asshole you are at the least communicating very poorly. You made a comment you knew to be inflammatory and continue to berate and derail people trying to actually discuss your point.
Actually you first insinuated I was insecure because my views were similar to the IDF, which was my first hint you were trolling but I humored you because I don't like to assume anything. But dang do you know your buzzwords well while saying nothing at all.
Anything you say is irrelevent when you 'both-sides' this issue. The IDF is engaged in genocide. There is no comparison that can be made from that to the arguments in favor of killing Palestinians. To fight the IDF would be an act done out of love and defense for the children and other innocent people being killed by them. Killing can be hateful, but in this instance it is necessary to stop the genocide. Even if it was hateful it would be the justified and moral action to take. The IDF is not going to stop voluntarily, just as the Nazis didn't stop until they lost the war.
You are denying genocide by ignoring the objective evidence, widespread and seen by millions, of on-going atrocities and claiming I'm fabricating justification. Personally I don't know how such a person could live with themself in light of what we know.
As I said I'm a Buddhist, Buddhist philosophy would agree that it creates bad karma to kill. But this figure is seen as a bodhisattva, or a form of the Buddha:
Righteous indignation, fury in the face of injustice is a form of compassion. This is distinct from hatred. Killing should be avoided, but there are costs to being calm in the face of violence. In this historical moment it would cause more death and suffering to allow the IDF to continue unopposed. Killing is not a solution, it is a pragmatic action to take if no other is available, and I agree it should be the ultimate last resort.
You avoided my question, I would like to know your answer, not some idealist moralizing. I am saying my question isn't rhetorical because I want to know what you would suggest we do to stop a genocide that doesn't entail any violence at all. I am genuinely curious! I am Buddhist, I agree killing is wrong and don't even kill ants or flies.
Israel is commiting genocide against Palestine. They are shooting and bombing dozens of children and women every single day, while starving all of Gaza and letting them die of preventable illness. Tell me how many Israeli children have been killed in the war today? If a Palestinian is about to shoot a child whether in Israel or anywhere, someone would be justified in stopping them. But that is not the situation. Israel has pinned Gazans into a deathtrap with no food, water, and hardly any healthcare system remaining, now using 'aid' centers to further their indiscriminate murder.
If any killing at all is wrong, then you would suggest people sat by and watch the Nazis finish the holocaust, because it would have been wrong to fight back?
You haven't answered it though, I am actually asking, why do you assume bad faith? One of my goals in life in general is to understand different viewpoints. But I see now you deny there is a genocide ongoing, so of course any action would be wrong to you because you think this is just a typical war.
It's not a matter of perspective, there is endless footage, documentation, corpses to see, to prove the genocide, and no reputable scholar denies Israel is commiting genocide. If you believe this is all a matter of perspective then you are choosing to live in a false constructed reality.
The discussion was about whether or not it's immoral or hateful to say "Death to the IDF". You said the guy was hateful. In light of an active genocide, I'm saying it is the moral position to take, to hope for military victory against the IDF. All the details are for the purpose of elucidating this point. Even still, "Death to the IDF" means the organization, it doesn't have to mean killing anyone. Though that's unlikely.
The "real issues"? What are the real issues you are referring to that I am avoiding?
In a hypothetical where there's a murderer with a machine gun killing children that will not be prosecuted in court then wishing them to be dead is pretty reasonable if you want the killing to stop.
Not saying killing is moral or that people don't have the right to live because they do but how else would you stop the murder if the government doesn't?