A lot of people hated the first version of this in the first places I posted it, so I’ve tried to improve it a bit, but I’m still not quite sure how it will be received. Is here a good place for it?
Image text:
Each group’s approach
Progressive
We want to stop using our taxes to bomb brown kids / march towards extinction. We want the freedom to work for our own survival.
Without funding bombs, we could eliminate the biggest tax burdens, shift remaining taxes more fairly, and provide basic needs like food and shelter.
You might not hear these ideas every day. We’re so outnumbered by extinction cultists, it’s probably harder to encounter us than to encounter liars who say “banning guns is progress” or “leftists support starvation” or something. Lately, we’re basically not allowed to be famous in real life, so I’m just a picture of Captain Kirk from Star Trek.
“Socialist”
If we get enough power, we will provide basic needs like food. However, we will repeatedly ask you to re-explain how “warlord taxes” and a “societal extinction cult” stop you from wanting an “actual paying job.”
When we’re tired of paying for your food, we aren’t really sure if we’ll kill you, enslave you, or finally get what you’re saying / let you work for your own survival. Some of us might “move right.” Some might “move left.” We’re at least listening to your points.
You’ve probably heard all these ideas before. Don’t worry. You’ll hear our ideas again, and again, and again. We’re one of the groups backed by the FCC.
“Moderate Right”
If we get enough power, we will enslave you for not willingly joining our extinction cult.
Social programs will be put in place to make sure you can’t be homeless, because you can’t be jobless.
We’ll keep your living/working conditions just tolerable enough to make you comply.
You’ve probably heard all these ideas before. Don’t worry. You’ll hear our ideas again, and again, and again. We’re one of the groups backed by the FCC.
“Far Right”
If we get enough power, we will kill you ASAP for not joining our extinction cult.
We’ll call that “freedom” because we’ll be “free” to do whatever we want to outsiders: people with the wrong behavior or skin color for our in-group.
Since you’re dead, you won’t be able to argue “freedom” means “not having a bunch of dumb rules people can be killed for ignoring.”
You’ve probably heard all these ideas before. Don’t worry. You’ll hear our ideas again, and again, and again. We’re one of the groups backed by the FCC.
revised version
whoever loves Digit
nostr:npub1wamvxt2tr50ghu4fdw47ksadnt0p277nv0vfhplmv0n0z3243zyq26u3l2
Backed by the FCC? Do you know what the FCC does? Are you just trying to synthesize divisive content?
The FCC does stuff like decide who gets to license an FM radio station, an over the air TV network, a ham radio, and how powerful unlicensed CB radios can be, and how web infrastructure operates, and how phone numbers are distributed, etc.
They seem like a core part of why I couldn’t find any recognizable real-world person to put a picture of under column 1
I’m trying to wake people up
The FCC in no way chooses which political group becomes “famous”.
Shit like this is why “progressives” continue to get such limited traction – more focused on making enemies than anything else, and limited understanding of the real world
The FCC, which licenses broadcast TV networks, has nothing to do with the TV-based echo chambers (e.g. Fox, NBC) that became widespread across the US before the internet?
The FCC, which developed a lot of internet infrastructure and continues to decide a lot of its rules, has nothing to do with the internet-based echo chambers (e.g. Facebook, YouTube) that are increasingly widespread now?
How can you possibly justify what you’re saying?
in the same way that the highway department, which builds all the roads, really has no say about what the cargo in the truck is
If the highway department has no say over who uses the roads they build, how are they equivalent to an agency that does not build electromagnetic spectrum, but decides who is allowed to use it?
If the highway department aren’t the ones stopping me from trucking, what makes them a metaphor for the ones stopping me from running a radio station?
Stop trying to argue and start trying to understand what part of the real world you’re missing
No u
Five downvoters and three commenters who’ve never heard of or refuse to acknowlege the role of the 1954 Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished in 1987, all of which was decided by the FCC, with minimal outside involvement.
The current FCC chair has really losened the riegns on meta and google to spread and profit off-of straight gibberish that happens to help MAGA, but sure, OP is the truly ignorant and deluded one. EDIT: It’s ALSO given those conglomerates legal tools to shut-down leftist stories and memes as “false news”, TOOLS THEY HAVE BEEN USING!
Let’s be real though, OP, no one’s going to read that much text, and not go into it then come out of it without some strong opinions that won’t be swayed by an all-too-short and all-too-simple conclusion paragraph. THAT part, at least, needed a better explanation in the post-body.
What you’ve made isn’t a meme. Its both too much to ask of meme connoisseurs, and a less-than-artful dodge versus any real argument/justification. I’ve up-voted both times I’ve seen it because the discussion needs had and your dissenters are being at least as ignorant and shallow as yourself, but if your ratio were closer to even or overall positive, I would have just yawned and moved on.
You asked for feedback, yet have argued with every-single commentor without bringing-up any new points or sources. Take these five paragraphs to heart or give-up on the trolling: you’re not any good at it.
The OP lives in a strange world where he believes that the FCC is shutting down ‘progressive’ (progressive by his own standards, as he doesn’t seem to think Bernie Sanders is progressive going by the OP) websites and thus silencing people. The FCC may be pretty poorly run currently, but there is no evidence of any historical shut down of websites by them.
The FCC is intentionally failing to fight the media’s tendencies towards mergers/monopolies and conservatism, both of which its been clearly and keenly aware-of since inception. You don’t need shut anything down when you can help drown it out. You are the one living in your own little world.
Right, but that’s not what the OP is claiming regarding what the FCC does here.
You’ve got it backwards. “We’re one of the groups backed by the FCC” on the right three. No mention of the FCC on the far left. No mention of censorship or suppression, just a lack of backing or promotion.
You literaly invented your own narrative, misrepresenting OP’s rather than actually contradicting it; Straight from the pages of the fascist’s playbook.
Methinks I was too kind when I said you merely live in your own world.
You’ve got it backwards. “We’re one of the groups backed by the FCC” on the right three. No mention of the FCC on the far left. No mention of censorship or suppression, just a lack of backing or promotion.
Yes, I know. Implicit in his idea here is that the FCC specifically shuts down ‘progressive’ themed websites and discussions online. Which he has confirmed he thinks happens here, and indeed in other threads.
You literaly invented your own narrative, misrepresenting OP’s rather than actually contradicting it; Straight from the pages of the fascist’s playbook.
What are you on about?
I’m discussing the Original Post. If you want to also drag iloveDigit@piefed.social’s comments into this. I’m not your guy.
Same goes for spoon-feeding you The Overton Window, Embrace/Expand/Extinguish strategies, or the current and past strategies of fascists when it comes to “debate” in the public sphere. You’ve twisted OP’s original words, moved the goal-posts on them, and apparenly managed to ignore the hundred’s of break-downs of just why the fuck Charlie Kirk was such a despicable person.
I doubt you’re in this community for any positive engagement, and either way, I’m still not your mark.
I’m discussing the Original Post. If you want to also drag iloveDigit@piefed.social’s comments into this. I’m not your guy.
He also continued to confirm he thought that in this thread.
Same goes for spoon-feeding you The Overton Window, Embrace/Expand/Extinguish strategies, or the current and past strategies of fascists when it comes to “debate” in the public sphere. You’ve twisted OP’s original words, moved the goal-posts on them, and apparenly
I have not twisted anyone’s words. That is what he claims.
managed to ignore the hundred’s of break-downs of just why the fuck Charlie Kirk was such a despicable person.
What does Charlie Kirk have to do with anything here? When did I say anything about him whatsoever?
Weird and incorrect response. The FCC is definitely involved in shutting down websites, but that’s not very directly related to the points being discussed here
You never provided a single example of the FCC shutting down a website.
And?
So I have no reason whatsoever to believe you.
Didn’t ask. Feel free to try a search engine or chat bot or someone that feels like finding examples for you, instead of posting incorrect guesses with blind confidence
I have. I can find no historical examples of the FCC ever doing this.
I’m not sure how to improve it further with this feedback. Your suggestions might make sense, I’m just not sure how to implement. Other people’s suggestions like removing the FCC part don’t make sense
Post-Title << shorter, sweeter, even funnier is best. NOT the place for “does this go here?” or requests for feed-back.
Pic/meme <<SHOULD AT LEAST BE A LITTLE IRONIC AND OR FUNNY!!!
Post-description/Post-content ^^ the bulk of your rant/explanation goes here, along with so much other crap you’ve been cramming into the Titles and Pics ^^
… explicit enough for you now?
EDIT: If you can’t defend/substantiate a claim in the OP, or even fit it in, don’t be dragged into defending it in the comments on that post.
The FCC(by order of Congress or Executive Order) has mandated “fake news” be taken down on various platforms. Keeping their guidance about what “fake news” is vague has given them plausible deniability. The results are almost entirely to be found in removed facebook posts and de-listed google results.
This post sounds like you think you’re such a smart ass, but you’re coming out much as a tone deaf propagandist IMO. What are you even trying to convey?
