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

  • whoever loves Digit@piefed.socialOPEnglish
    2·
    3 days ago

    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?

    • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
      5·
      3 days ago

      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

      • whoever loves Digit@piefed.socialOPEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        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?