Malicious Compliance
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
I'm sure they would, why should I care? They will make any justification to further their genocide. People paying attention can see the truth. That is the point, you can say anything to justify actions but there is an objective reality. And in that reality, it is an act of kindness to fight the IDF.
Not my truth, the objective reality that can easily be seen of daily massacres of Gazans. No position was abandoned, it is both the relative and objective moral position to fight against the IDF and Zionism in general. And currently that requires violence as they are in a state of war and will kill those that oppose them. "DEATH TO THE IDF" is like a warcry, it's not supposed to be a rhetorical position, it's a call to inspire and motivate the resistance against Zionism and genocide.
They already do say "Death to Arabs" in Israel and use all sorts of logic to justify their atrocities. And death to an ethnic group is a bit different than calling for the death of a terrorist organization.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
As I said there is widespread agreement that Israel is commiting a genocide against the people in Gaza. There is no way for all people to agree on one objective reality or truth, but most people can see and agree that Israel is committing genocide and must be stopped.
If you disagree with that view of reality, you may as well argue with me that there is no moon or the stars are a projection.
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?