4 ms·

> Comply but leak the truth to the media. Doesn't apply, everybody knows what's going on already. > Comply in a maximally obstructive way. Doesn't apply, the

> Comply but leak the truth to the media. Doesn't apply, everybody knows what's going on already. > Comply in a maximally obstructive way. Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against. > Comply just enough to not get fired but not as much as someone who may be more inclined to please their boss. Doesn't apply, you can't half-fire the specified people, or give just a little bit of money to the people you've been instructed not to fund. You can comply, or not, and it's not going to be any kind of secret which way you chose. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory and leave the building a day later than you otherwise would, with less dignity, go for it. > Enlist other opposition and find ways to multiply your obstructive compliance into other departments. It's just not that kind of role.

ScoobleDoodle 2y ago
>> Comply in a maximally obstructive way. > Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against. "Obstructive" in this scenario results in the organization keeping functioning effectively. Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing.
- justin66 2y ago
  > Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing. Right, but with whose money?
  - ScoobleDoodle 2y ago
    I'm pointing out a definitional misunderstanding. It's was a double negative misinterpreted as a single negative.
    - margalabargala 2y ago
      I see your point, but I think you are missing their point. They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

ScoobleDoodle 2y ago

>> Comply in a maximally obstructive way. > Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against. "Obstructive" in this scenario results in the organization keeping functioning effectively. Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing.

justin66 2y ago
> Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing. Right, but with whose money?
- ScoobleDoodle 2y ago
  I'm pointing out a definitional misunderstanding. It's was a double negative misinterpreted as a single negative.
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    I see your point, but I think you are missing their point. They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]