cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/post/423354
Why the fuck would you censor "panicked"?
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
531 points (92.6% liked)
Malicious Compliance
21722 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.
======
-
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
Welcome to corpo controlled internet, where you write within their guidelines, not where you freely communicate like actual people.
I believe that the persone who made the meme is just stupid
I mean even in corpo internet lingo where obscenity is censored... Panicked? Is panicked now negative enough of a word to deserve censorship? It's a crazy web out there
Lowest common denominator strikes again with ludicrously unnecessary censorship. Not even curse words or things like "suicide" anymore, just whatever drifts past their sights.
Its probably to avoid semantic analysis marking it as distressing or negative and deranking it for the target audience.
It probably triggered someone, somewhere, somehow, sometime and someone flagged it as an issue.
Engagement bait for other platforms that are engagement algorithm driven fishing for this exact kind of comment.
i_guess_meme.png
Well that one mark ended up making 13 of the comments in just this comment chain alone. 14 including this one I'm making, on a post with 50 comments on it, over 20% of them. If this were any other massive platform like reddit or Instagram or Facebook, this level of engagement would drive algorithms extremely effectively.
Oh, I thought it read panfucked. Whatever that means.
Looks more like a stray markup made while editing.
It's like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Say "panic" on social media and suddenly everyone starts looting.
This didn’t happen
If the boss wanted everyone lunching at once, I assume that's probably when they would take their own lunch, so they would have just closed the office for that hour.
I believe it happened twice to two different people
You mean it happened twice to each one of the 2 people?
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Exact instructions with no allowance for judgment were given and followed exactly. Not malicious, just compliance with stupid instructions.
Erm ackshually that's not really a valid application of hanlon's razor because the entities being referred to as stupid or malicious are two separate beings
That’s not a requirement of Hanlon’s razor. Stupidity can be introduced at any point in the process. If a commander orders a firing squad to form a circle and they shoot each other, that’s on the commander, not the squad for shooting each other.
But in that scenario the subject of interest (who we're trying to determine if they're stupid or malicious) is the commander regardless of whether they were stupid or they were malicious. (Actually, you could apply the razor to the commander, the soldiers, or the system of both in combination; it works in any of those scenarios, as long as it applies to the same entity the whole time). In your original scenario, you aren't comparing the hypothesis of a malicious employee to a stupid employee, you're comparing a malicious employee to stupid instructions. Hanlon's razor does not imply the employee is not malicious because you aren't using it to imply the employee is stupid, you're claiming the instructions are stupid, which is a perfectly good motivation for malicious behavior from the employee. A correct usage of Hanlon's Razor here would be to say that you should assume the employees are stupid rather than malicious. I disagree with that interpretation because Hanlon's Razor is often wrong, but it's at least a valid usage of it.
Somehow I find the photo of a muscle guy with no clothes insulting for an "office" story.
It is just so disconnected from each other?
And I seriously doubt most office workers find a ribbed extreme muscle guy representative of office workers. And especially not the women.
It's not lie a huge issue, it's just a meme, sorry for pointing out I found the guy misplaced,
You all go ahead and have fun without much thought.
OP sees the malicious compliance as a "chad" move, hence the use of Giga Chad meme.
That's the Chad meme guy.
jesse what the fuck are you on about
Ok Karen.
Sorry but giga chad doesnt come with noodle arms and a pouch :/
Edit:
Just for you I created this:
This should reflect the avergae idea of your office worker way better.
"You" created it, you say?
I willed it into existence by utilizing another non-organic entity to manifest it.
And I am a real person. Thus the "" are falsely used.
Better use them this way: "Created"
Both are valid. You didn't create it. Putting quotes around "created" indicates I believe a different verb (eg. "requested") would be accurate. Putting quotes around "you" indicates that the AI was the one who created it. They're kind of a package deal here so either works.
Cool drawing. 👍
Except part of the issue was the naked part.
He should wear a shirt, or other form of typical office clothing.
AI slop