18

In Polish there's a phrase "podłożyć [komuś] świnię", literally "set up pig [under somebody]". It means performing an action that - while otherwise completely legal, seemingly neutral, and not apparently malicious, is extremely undesirable to somebody affected - and was performed for that very reason, to cause trouble to the affected.

It's related to "setting somebody up (to fail)", "giving them enough rope to hang themselves", "setting them a lose-lose scenario", "digging up dirt", etc, but with a special focus on the effect of a deliberate but seemingly arbitrary decision. Also, police "sting" operations sometimes happen to be this, especially if the target was originally reluctant to perform the "criminal activity".

Some examples:

  • in understaffed branch of company you reserve holidays for yourself for a time for when your (disliked) co-worker planned some trip to an event they eagerly awaited; they will not be given time off with the division short-staffed by your absence.
  • The disliked person has a court case with unrelated third party. You provide the third party with efficient court advice.
  • Follow a faulty order to the dot, making sure to give credit for the disastrous outcome where it's due. Possibly even (unofficially) suggest that course of action in the first place.
  • Your political opponent allegedly made a bad slip of bad judgment, did something legally ambiguous sometime in the past. Report that to authorities shortly before elections.

Are there idioms/phrases to describe this kind of action?

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
SF.
  • 11,386
  • Some of these examples seem like there is a direct benefit to the performer of the action. I think I understand your question, but your examples might not be particularly apt if I understand the description correctly. – Daniel Nov 16 '15 at 17:32
  • It seems to me like the third law of human stupidity given by Carlo M. Cipolla in his The Basic Laws Of Human Stupidity – rraallvv Nov 16 '15 at 22:35
  • 4
    @rraallvv That reminds me of the phrase "Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice." – ErikE Nov 16 '15 at 23:02
  • 1
    If I dislike a person so much as to sabotage their chance of being elected, aren't I benefitting from the knowledge that I caused his "disgrace" his "downfall"? There is a famous saying revenge is a dish best served cold which is what I would suspect is the "malefactor's" primary aim. – Mari-Lou A Nov 16 '15 at 23:27
  • Almost a duplicate: What is a word that could define someone who likes to cause conflict? – Mari-Lou A Nov 16 '15 at 23:34
  • @Mari-LouA I don't think it's a duplicate. Also, the thrust of the question is not about not benefiting, but about the actions taken being plausibly deniable as malicious. "Oh, you wanted to take vacation then? I'm so sorry!" – ErikE Nov 16 '15 at 23:36
  • @ErikE it's someone who's acting sneaky, mean, someone who is two-faced, someone who's a snake in the grass, a *Machiavellian+, etc. etc. There are tons of Qs on El&U about this type of person. – Mari-Lou A Nov 16 '15 at 23:39
  • Well, there you go, go ahead and post Machiavellian as an answer. The OP might select your answer over mine! – ErikE Nov 16 '15 at 23:40
  • related: 1. Someone who is cunning but depicts themselves as innocent to others; 2. What is a word that means “someone who pretends to be your friend but is actually your enemy?” 3. A good noun for a two-faced person – Mari-Lou A Nov 16 '15 at 23:47
  • 1
    A further distinction, @Mari-LouA, is that those look for a name for a person, and this question looks for the name of an action. – ErikE Nov 17 '15 at 01:50
  • It seems to me that this is "vengeance", plain and simple. – Hot Licks Nov 17 '15 at 08:24
  • I think the edited title is less useful. In containing words from the selected answer, it seems to make the answer miss the mark a bit (it becomes a bit of a "gimme" question), and also removes additional search terms that someone who doesn't know the phrase plausibly deniable might use in trying to find this concept. I recommend going back to the previous title or one that describes the intent rather than using any of the words plausible, deniable, or malice. – ErikE Nov 17 '15 at 19:08
  • @ErikE: I'd still be glad for an answer that gives a common name for the term, and I wouldn't hesitate to move the accept tick mark if such one happened, but it seems, among the entries in the accepted answer it's not "plausibly deniable malice" which is what I was looking for, but rather "I don't think English has a set phrase with all the connotations you are looking for." An answer of "there is none such" can still be a valid answer. – SF. Nov 17 '15 at 22:34
  • (plus shortly after I accepted the answer I got at least three new ones in short order, that completely omitted the "plausible deniability" part of the requirement as described in the question body, so I changed the title to emphasize the desired focus - once I learned how to phrase it concisely!) – SF. Nov 17 '15 at 22:38
  • 1
    It's just that questions giving the answer in their title seem to be tautologies: Q: "What is a phrase for plausibly deniable malicious intent" A: "There isn't one, call it plausibly deniable malice" is NOT a very interesting question and answer. Questions should display the knowledge that you had when you asked them, at least (again) partly so that other searchers will more likely find them by using other, perhaps more common, words to describe. Unless you strongly resist, I do plan to change the title of the question later to something that reflects this "not knowing the answer yet" aspect. – ErikE Nov 17 '15 at 23:26
  • 1
    The fact that there is no perfect English word or phrase for this behavior makes it all the harder for English-speakers to perceive. – Beta Nov 18 '15 at 00:14
  • Someone used the word "sabotage" in passing, but really I'd say that that might well be the most frequently applied English word in these situations. Now, granted sabotage by definition does not necessarily have to be covert; occasionally after the event occurs it's perfectly clear that sabotage occurred, who did it, and why. But more often there is at least an element of plausible deniability that the actor wants to maintain, if not outright secrecy about his or her identity or even whether there was an intentional act in play at all. Which gets at what you're trying to get at, I think. – mostlyinformed Nov 18 '15 at 06:42
  • I think the edited title makes it clear that the malicious action is not culpable, that it is difficult to accuse someone of intentionally and willingly harming another. But by all means feel free to rollback the edit! :) – Mari-Lou A Nov 18 '15 at 11:19

13 Answers13

23

It sounds like a spite:

  • a malicious, usually petty desire to harm, annoy, or humiliate another person; malice.

  • malevolence by virtue of being malicious or spiteful or nasty.

The expression is out of spite :

  • with the desire to harm someone or something.
    • Jane told some evil gossip about Bill out of spite. That was not an accident! You did it out of spite.

The Free Dictionary

  • 2
    It misses the "innocent means" part though - while the spiteful action is traceable to the source, there is no way to place a blame or prove this was done out of spite. – SF. Nov 16 '15 at 11:24
  • In that case it is just an unfortunate coincidence, *but*, in your second example, "would you provide the third party with legal advice" innocently? Also in the 4th example is hard to make it look 'an innocent act'. –  Nov 16 '15 at 11:29
  • The fact that the action that causes harm to a third person does not (apparently) benefit those who did it, does not imply 'innocence or candor' on their part. –  Nov 16 '15 at 11:38
  • 4
    Hi SF. Your examples simply don't have an "innocent" angle. In each of your four examples, there is nothing innocent at all - the person deliberately and specifically acted to "sneakily" hurt the other person. – Fattie Nov 16 '15 at 13:04
  • @JoeBlow: Report a violation, like a good citizen (but at unfortunate time)? Provide a kind advice to a random person? Use the liberty to choose any time for your holidays you like, with the company's "first come first served rule", at unfortunate time again? Follow an order and, being a subordinate, never question the competence of your superior? The malicious intent is not provable. – SF. Nov 16 '15 at 13:19
  • 2
    I'm not entirely sure there is an English idiom that accurately conveys what you mean, then. "Out of spite" is certainly inclusive of any of your examples; beyond that, it's just a matter of common sense on the spiting person to choose a course of action that allows them to pull it off while looking (arguably) innocent. I'll think on this today, and see if maybe I can recall some phrase that better encompasses what you're looking for, but for now I think "out of spite" is about as close as we get. – Doktor J Nov 16 '15 at 14:23
  • @DoktorJ: I wonder if this would be applicable to bigger entities. I'm asking this in regards to a recent article: Chinese researchers published paper on a stealth material. They made it accessible to broad public; seems any country can now develop a plane invisible to standard radars. Among different motivations behind this move one discussed is that it's an inexpensive way to force the USA to run into costs of upgrading their radars to detect the new stealth planes - which don't exist yet (and won't, with the radars upgraded). – SF. Nov 16 '15 at 14:45
  • 1
    hi SF. In your examples TWO THROUGH FOUR, it is explicitly malicious, deliberate, conduct. Your example ONE can be read as "accidentally". It's not complex ... you can hurt someone either by AN ACCIDENT or DELIBERATELY It's just that simple. You must be looking for either BY ACCIDENT, or BY DELIBERATELY, or a phrase that covers both. There is only three choices. There is no murky middle ground. – Fattie Nov 16 '15 at 19:14
  • @JoeBlow: Look at the extra example in the comment right above yours. From a scientific point of view this is a clear course of actions; scientists performing a research and publishing it which is the most natural course of action. This gets less clear if you look at it from a political point of view: this kind of research is usually kept secret by the military, Releasing it to the public hurts a rival country economically. USA can't really complain because that's what scientists are supposed to do, but the fact it was allowed to go public creates an unprovable suspicion of foul play. – SF. Nov 16 '15 at 19:58
12

To put a spoke in someone's wheel or just spoke his wheel is to materially damage a person's plans or progress. (Don't ask me why it's not spike or stick instead of spoke, there's debate about the origin of this seemingly strange phrase.)

put a spoke in somebody's wheel
(informal)

to make it ​difficult for someone to ​achieve something they had ​planned to do:
His ​letter really put a spoke in ​our ​wheel.

source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online

But I don't think English has a set phrase with all the connotations you are looking for. It's possible you could come up with your own phrase that people would understand. Something like plausibly deniable malice or ostensibly innocent malignance.

plausible deniability

... circumstances where a denial of responsibilty or knowledge of wrongdoing can not be proved as true or untrue due to a lack of evidence proving the allegation. This term is often used in reference to situations where high ranking officials deny responsibilty for or knowledge of wrongdoing by lower ranking officials. In those situations officials can "plausibly deny" an allegation even though it may be true.

It also refers to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse.

source: uslegal.com

malice n.

  1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:
    the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.

source: dictionary.com

ostensible adj.

2 : being such in appearance : plausible rather than demonstrably true or real:
the ostensible purpose for the trip

source: Merriam-Webster

A related concept that may interest you is practicing strategic incompetence, which is intentional failure at tasks in order to relieve oneself of responsibility for them.

Another word that may be of use to you is Machiavellian, meaning (Merriam-Webster) suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; specifically: marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.

ErikE
  • 4,417
  • 1
    I guess that you are right that English has no such common phrase - and I believe an act of plausibly deniable malice is the most accurate description of the activity. – SF. Nov 16 '15 at 23:07
  • 1
    Your "ostensibly innocent malignance." just rolls off the tongue. What does it mean? It's a paradox. It's a nonsensical nonce expression. – Mari-Lou A Nov 16 '15 at 23:21
  • 3
    @Mari-LouA Some day, if there's an "almost a duplicate" function on this site to close questions, then you can utilize that to mark the question such, but in the meantime, this question is obviously not a true duplicate as the answers are quite different. So your meddling isn't welcome and most certainly isn't constructive. In the case of "ostensibly innocent malignance", if you simply go look up the word ostensible you will find that it means "stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so." Thus, ostensibly innocent means "stating or appearing to be innocent". – ErikE Nov 16 '15 at 23:39
  • @Mari-LouA: the problem is in grouping, ostensibly (innocent malignance) is a paradox, but (ostensibly innocent) malignance isn't. That's why I prefer plausibly deniable malice - because here the wrong grouping plausibly (deniable malice) carries about the same meaning as (plausibly deniable) malice. – SF. Nov 17 '15 at 06:43
  • @Mari-LouA I don't think "unprovable" hits the spot, because the situations mentioned by the OP wouldn't work if someone had full knowledge as might be revealed by a full investigation by authorities. Plausibly deniable is a much lower standard that is more easily met, due to situations where there is no full investigation possible. – ErikE Nov 17 '15 at 16:45
  • A much better answer, well done. – Mari-Lou A Nov 17 '15 at 19:00
  • "Spoke in a wheel" is odd considering wheels can have spokes, perhaps it's about a superfluous spoke causing more harm than good? – SuperBiasedMan Nov 18 '15 at 09:14
  • Let's be clear on one thing, posting links that are related to the OP is not done with the intention of closing them. It is but a handy reference for future visitors. Please note the number of linked questions on the right. Useful to everyone, not detrimental. Compare that list with the so-called related questions. Do you see a difference? No votes have ever been cast to close the question. I was not meddling, if you cannot handle a user who expresses her opinion then maybe EL&U is not for you. – Mari-Lou A Nov 18 '15 at 11:26
  • @Mari-LouA You call my offerings nonsense, I'm going to argue with you. Maybe you could be more diplomatic and come in a little less hot, and get better results. Then people won't call you a meddler. – ErikE Nov 18 '15 at 15:30
  • @SuperBiasedMan Please search online for the provenance of the phrase. I'm not going to discuss it here. Link if you ask a new question, but be sure to research first. – ErikE Nov 18 '15 at 15:32
7

Consider,

play a dirty trick on someone

play a trick on someone or play a prank on someone: to do a trick that affects someone. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs

pull a dirty trick on someone

pull a trick (also, pull a stunt) [on someone]: to deceive someone; to play a trick on someone. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs

screw someone over

: informal treat someone unfairly; cheat or swindle someone. OED

land [give] someone a low blow

low blow: an unfair blow McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions

For example, When my roommate moved out without a word of warning, leaving me to pay the entire rent, that was a low blow, or She wanted to win the argument, but bringing up his failed marriage was a low blow.

throw a [monkey] wrench in/into [the works]

: sabotage or frustrate a project or plans, as in The boss threw a monkey wrench into our plans when he said we'd have to work Saturday. This transfer of industrial sabotage—that is, throwing a tool inside machinery—to other subjects dates from the early 1900s.The American Heritage® Idioms Dictionary

Community
  • 1
Elian
  • 43,007
6

Consider the following idioms:

do the dirty on someone:

to ​behave unfairly towards someone, usually without ​their ​knowledge

(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/do-the-dirty-on-sb)

do someone dirt:

to do ill to someone; to harm someone’s reputation.

(http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/do+someone+dirt)

do a dirty trick on someone:

dirty trick: an unkind or aggressive trick

(WordNet)

In addition, the British idiom to queer somebody's pitch could work:

to spoil someone's chances of doing something
She queered my pitch by asking for promotion before I did.

For instance, you could use "queer the pitch" in your political opponent example.

A.P.
  • 13,577
  • The "queer the pitch" seems closest to the intended meaning. – SF. Nov 16 '15 at 13:34
  • @SF Yes, I think it's close, in certain contexts. I can read Russian very well, and there's the same idiom in the Russian language, apparently with the same connotations. I don't think there's a perfect equivalent to "podlozhit svinyu" in English, but I do know it's not "spite" or "out of spite". – A.P. Nov 16 '15 at 19:22
5

Follow a faulty order to the dot, making sure to give credit for the disastrous outcome where it's due. Possibly even (unofficially) suggest that course of action in the first place.

This is referred to as "malicious compliance".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance

bmw_dubstep_dude
  • 51
4

To undermine

Literally means to dig underneath; or more figuratively, to sabotage.

the_prole
  • 161
3

In sport there's "Gamesmanship", doing something what whilst not illegal or breaking the rules may still be a dubious way of gaining an advantage to either help you win or another not to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship

Also have a look at, "against the spirit of the law." Something might be to the letter of the law whilst still achieving what the law set out to prohibit. For example if al law meant to stop people parking by fire hydrants read, "You cannot park a vehicle in font of a fire hydrant" a lawyer might then argue you'd parked not in front of the hydrant but beside it, thus being to the letter but not the spirit of the law.

Phill upNorth
  • 126
2

Your context seems to be covering a wide range of situations. You could consider using "stab someone in the back"

To harm (someone) by treachery or betrayal of trust.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

to do harm to (someone), especially to a friend or to a person who is unsuspecting or in a defenseless position.

[Dictionary.com]

'back-stabbing" as a noun means:

harmful and unfair things that are said or done to hurt the reputation of someone

[Merriam-Webster]

  • doesn't this ignore the "and was performed for that very reason, to cause trouble to the affected" part? To me, "Back-stabbing" seems emphasize a the betrayal act that would most likely be done in order to take advantage from the person being back-stabbed, and not out of sadism alone – Eduardo Wada Nov 16 '15 at 14:01
  • @EduardoWada Yes, it means mostly "betrayal of trust", but I suggested it as it fits some context. –  Nov 16 '15 at 14:04
2

To set up

Literally means to arrange things. Can also mean "to arrange the circumstances" of someones failure. The element of plausible deniability is often implicit to the context.

the_prole
  • 161
0

Also, police "sting" operations sometimes happen to be this, especially if the target was originally reluctant to perform the "criminal activity".

Entrapment

a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit.[1] It is a conduct that is generally discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, it's a possible defense against criminal liability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Enilorac
  • 695
0

I can't think of a common parlance equivalent, however, the most apt word to describe that from my understanding of your examples and the language is perfidy (from the latin words "Per Fidem", indicating betrayal of trust, confidence, or principle (literally means through faith (as in passing through) in its most basic form), as it covers:

  • the malicious intent
  • the effective betrayal of the subject or principle
  • has the association with an uncleanness of morality or purpose: the word itself carries negative connotations and meaning whilst alluding to potential obfuscation and deceit.
GMasucci
  • 322
  • 1
  • 7
-1

When the malicious person is in a bad spot:

I'll bring you down with me

or

I'll take them down with me

In other words, they're going to retaliate against the person that they feel was responsible for their own downfall, even though it doesn't help them recover.

TVtropes has a page on it, though it's more about examples in fiction than examples of its usage in English.

Pikamander2
  • 487
-1

There is one expression for this in gaming, called griefing.

A griefer is a player that tries his best to make the game as unpleasant as possible for other players without gaining anything for himself.

Zibelas
  • 101