this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
855 points (93.4% liked)

Malicious Compliance

21348 readers
4 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:

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fleeit@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I get it as a way of making a statement that needs to be made, but I'm not a fan of countering discrimination with discrimination. Makes me wonder if something more along the lines of requiring people to make a proper|positive stand before serving them could be a better approach? In this case, for instance, "we will serve only those who will affirm that they believe that all people are valid and equal regardless of their gender identity, sexual preference, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status." And, before you serve them make them acknowledge and agree to the statement.

[–] MdRuckus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I love this! This is amazing!

[–] Willer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

fair

my god the store looks gross what they sellin?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason! :D

Especially racist sexist homophobic chud dipshit fascist bootlickers.

[–] ThatGirlKylie@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

WAIT! NOT LIKE THAT THOUGH! IT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO KEEP THE GAYS OUT!

/s

But that's one way to do it. No churches, no religious people, no trump supporters, no republicans allowed at all. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Larry316@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I doubt many trump supporters are shopping there anyways. even if they are trump supporters, good luck trying to prove it before denying a sale. they dont walk around with it stamped on their forehead ;)

[–] admin@lemmy.magnor.ovh 5 points 2 years ago

Well they do have their hats.

[–] Randy_Bobandy@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure this is sarcasm, but my sarcasm radar has been right and truly fucked over the past 8 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kittengineer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)

For me the difference is in refusing to serve someone because how they were born vs the choices they make.

Totally ok with the later, but the laws are supposed to prevent the former. Just like it being illegal to discriminate against someone just because they are black or white or Asian or whatever.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] wokehobbit@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Well within their right. A business can serve whoever the fuck it wants. You don't like it, don't shop there.

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren't serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Bad example. The cases where businesses could refuse service to a customer were due to religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Not liking Trump would not fall under that category. Not sure about the other example though.

In general though, I think this would be fine. As long as this business is not funded or supported by taxpayer money.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›