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
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.
What do you mean?
I can find no information that backs your allegations of the FCC ever ordering the takedown of a website.
What allegations do you mean?
You claimed they, and by "they" I mean the FCC here - has shut down websites. There's no evidence for this. I had a look, I can find nothing.
Still not getting what you mean. It's pretty easy to find information about the FCC's involvement in how the authorities shut down websites. What did you try?
I can't find anything on this claim, and all information points that any attempt to try and shut down a site specifically because of its political viewpoint as being fundamentally unconstitutional.
The authorities definitely violate their constitution all the time, but I'm still not getting what methods you tried for finding this information and couldn't succeed
I searched up on google, browsed some sites that came up, for any records of FCC involvement in shutting down websites. Nothing there.
What search terms?
"can the federal communications commission order the shut down of websites", "has the federal communications commission ever ordered the shut down of websites" etc
Gotta improve your search skills. Those are really specific / leading questions that don't really get at the underlying point, search engines are generally not smart enough to connect those queries to what you're really trying to ask.
Try "FCC role in how the authorities shut down websites" or something maybe? Not sure if that would work either
So do you some links for me to browse that show the FCC shutting down a website?
Do you have it in you to admit that this has nothing to do with the context where you originally replied, and edit your first reply in this chain to reflect that, as a token of good faith discussion?
I don't really care about your wider political opinions - I was just giving context on your position to another user. Just noting that your weird issue against the FCC is rooted in claims you refuse to back up, and no-one is going take your worldview seriously if you refuse to back it up when queried.
And I'm not going to edit shit.
I don't think I care very much about the opinions of people who can't understand that the FCC has a role in how the authorities shut down websites.
That's everyone except you. Literally no-one believes that the FCC has this within their power.
Incorrect.
I will rephrase: The vast majority of people do not believe that the FCC has any such power whatsoever. If you refuse to listen to them because they reject your claim regarding the FCC, then you will yourself quickly talking to the wall.
Didn't ask