this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
-6 points (28.6% liked)

Antiwork

1862 readers
8 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

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?

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

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.

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.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 minute ago

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?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social -1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 minutes ago

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.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You never provided a single example of the FCC shutting down a website.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

So I have no reason whatsoever to believe you.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I have. I can find no historical examples of the FCC ever doing this.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I can find no information that backs your allegations of the FCC ever ordering the takedown of a website.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

What allegations do you mean?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I searched up on google, browsed some sites that came up, for any records of FCC involvement in shutting down websites. Nothing there.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

"can the federal communications commission order the shut down of websites", "has the federal communications commission ever ordered the shut down of websites" etc

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So do you some links for me to browse that show the FCC shutting down a website?

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

That's everyone except you. Literally no-one believes that the FCC has this within their power.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago