Black background would have been better.
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
34 points (97.2% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19327 readers
3 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The law specified the background color.
Legalist authorization bureaucracies will hinge the draconian punishment for failing to hang a sign on the dye used to color fabric.
Rainbow
I've seen this before, but I've never been able to verify it as being real.
It was a legitimate protest of a stupid law that uses a legacy of inconsistent thought and limited perception to do an end run around the first amendment, but the text of the law requires a poster per building, so if they have enough in English, there would be no "need" to accept or post them. Now, if a principal or administrator had some balls, I certainly don't see why they couldn't use one of these or to flank the posters they do post with lots of context or more diverse ideas.
Now, if a principal or administrator had some balls
You don't become a public school middle manager in Texas by showing balls. You'd get weeded out before you even got through the substitute program for teaching gym class.
Doesn't that go against separation of church and state, and if this is government pushed, isn't this a first amendment violation?
Welcome to the fun world of ceremonial deism.
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.
Very slim chance this actually happened. There no actual photo of the flag, just a digital image that was created. Which means if it was not the creator of the flag, but a third person- they’d have a photo of the flag or in the least- not bothered recreating it in photoshop, but just describing it in enough detail. And if it was the creator that posted this- it wouldn’t be in 3rd person suggesting “someone” did this.
Additionally, In the rare chance it did happen- it wouldn’t be enforced.
What? You mean someone would just go on the Internet and lie like that?