this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1360 points (99.4% liked)

Malicious Compliance

18048 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.

======

======

Also check out the following communities:

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] krayj@lemmy.world 161 points 1 year ago (39 children)

I think it would have been fair to have a rule saying "no surgical modifications"... because doing things like facelift, nose-job, breast/buttox implants, cheek lifts, wrinkle removal, etc, are obviously unfair advantages (in a beauty contest) for those who have the money pay for it; and having a generic blanket rule like that would have accomplished the same thing they were trying to accomplish without being so blatantly transphobic... so a rule like what they have only proves that they are both despicable AND dumb. The entire notion of beauty pageants is outdated and stupid if you ask me.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Lol, you implement that and basically all beauty pageants stop existing. Which would be a good thing, mind you. But I've never met a pageant contestant in my life that isn't … let's say … heavily enhanced by medical procedures.

[–] AngryBear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’ve met a lot of beauty pageant contestants yeh? How many?

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Farmers, farmers mums

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)