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.