This might disappoint you, but I have had no such realization. While I admit there are some religions that act fascistic, I do not concede that fascism is a necessary aspect of religion.

@redbai
Maybe one day you will actually realize religion and fascism are the same!

I really do not give a fuck what you think!!!

So your opinion is just that fuck up shit!!

@of-the-mountain Memes about your personal experience make no relevant point.

I really do not give a fuck that you don't give a fuck what I think and I do it less dramatically.

It's the GOVERNMENT via the FCC who slaps the fine on any companies that allows people to say "shit" but doesn't even address people who incite insurrection or spout racist dogma on the air waves, so your logic doesn't seem to apply.

@redbai WHEN was the last time a media outlet was ACTUALLY fined for saying "shit" 'on-the-air' ?

[reuters.com]

@FearlessFly Did you read the article? Nowhere does it say that the indecency laws that are regulated by the FCC are not enforceable. I missed that part when I read it. Maybe you cold quote that part of the article so it'd be easier to find.

@redbai DJT -- “shithole countries”

@FearlessFly Did I miss the quote or are you trying to create a distraction?

@redbai . . . about in the middle :

[axios.com]

@FearlessFly This might shock you but "about in the middle" is not a quote.

@redbai The Trump “shithole countries” quote is about in the middle of the linked Axios article (NO MEDIA incurred fine(s) )

@FearlessFly Why don't you list the newspaper or radio stations that allowed the word "shit" in that statement to be broadcast? Or aren't you aware of the fact that they can censor the words they don't want to broadcast without affecting any other words in any given sentence and do so?

So unless you also have a listing of said stations that actually broadcast the word and not just the fact that someone famous said the word, you haven't demonstrated anything about what was allowed to be broadcast.

@redbai [politico.com]

. . . find them yourself

Why don't you list all the FCC fines for his public statement ?

@FearlessFly Since I never claimed that anyone was fined for Trump's public statements, that appears to be a strawman argument to distract from the fact that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that the FCC doesn't fine people using the indecency laws at their disposal.

Your using that politico article demonstrates even more that either you don't know what you're talking about or don't read the articles you think make your point. Here, I'll quote from your latest ridiculous attempt.

"Many directed their ire at CNN, which the FCC has no authority over, according to documents POLITICO received following an open records request."

Note the part where it says that "CNN, which the FCC has no authority over". Why would you use an example where the FCC doesn't have authority to demonstrate that they didn't use their authority? That's pretty stupid.

@redbai Have they fined NBC or Google (youtube) ?

If you cant'/haven't found examples, perhaps you haven't looked

@FearlessFly Are you really as stupid as you appear or are you a troll?

Google and YouTube doesn't have to follow FCC guidelines for the same reason that CNN doesn't have to and you obviously don't know why demonstrating an ignorance of the subject. NBC gave a warning for context. Doing so puts them in compliance with the law, another thing you apparently didn't know.

This assumption you appear to have that I must find an example is BS as I never said that someone was fined. But I'm also not so ignorant as to believe the word is avoided by radio and television because the FCC couldn't care less, the very premise of your ignorant comments.

@redbai
"Google and YouTube doesn't have to follow FCC guidelines"
"puts them in compliance with the law"

It is hard not to notice that your assertions DON"T include links to knowledgeable sources.

In your OP you opine (whine) about FCC 'shit'/lie/hate-speech discrepancy.
NOW, you claim "the FCC couldn't care less"
Any YOU think I am 'trolling' ?
Sounds to me like you "speak with forked tongue"

@FearlessFly Ah, now you partially quote what I say so that you can misrepresent my comments. Good to know you're not just a troll, but a dishonest troll.

@redbai [en.wikipedia.org]

@FearlessFly Ah, so that's what you've been doing. Finally an explanation for your posts. Thanks.

Please elaborate on how its a corporate phenomena as I don't see the connection.

The corporations that own radio stations have a vested interest in hate speech. Sinclair broadcasting is one of the most powerful out there.

@redbai The corporations don't want dissenting speech against the rich and corporations, which often might include profanity from people on the left, who oppose corporate rule of our country. The speech prohibitions also please the corporation's allies on the right such as social conservatives and the strongly religious.

@Theresa_N That's an interesting POV. It has always been my opinion that there were racist people who run some corporations who simply unconsciously or consciously perpetuated racist dynamics in said corporation. That the concept of corporation itself was not racist, but that corporations were simply a tool used by some racist.

@TomMcGiverin I find it intriguing this concept that the driving negative force is "corporations" as opposed to those who are actually running the corporations.

@redbai Semantics. Corporations are always about max profit and power, so no matter who is running them, they almost always work against the common good and the masses. We need to revoke corporate charters and regulate them more, because right now they own the government, are more powerful than it, and cannot be reformed or controlled by it. They are also unaccountable to the masses.

@TomMcGiverin I don't agree that it's semantics. Those who run a corporation have a lot to say as to how it is to be run. Corporations are just a tool and cannot direct direct a government any more than a hammer can put in a nail without the users intent. I also believe it's a bit naive to believe that they are "always about max profit".

@redbai You are wrong and I am not going to debate you. Corporations have bought our federal government thru their campaign contributions. Almost no corporations are run in a way to not maximize greed and profit. Their CEOs and boards of directors are legally responsible for maximizing shareholder's profits. You are either incredibly naive, willfully ignorant, or lying by pretending to think that most corporations are good and seek the public welfare. Now, shut up about this with me or I will block you.

@TomMcGiverin Well, you should have told me you defined a reality that shouldn't be questioned at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered with a different opinion. Who am I kidding, you're just being pompous and I'm making fun of it. Declaring me wrong and demonstrating it are two different things which is why you won't debate your opinion. You can apparently do the former but not the latter.

Ever heard of a non-profit corporation? There are literally thousands of them across the world and they don't run in a way to "maximize profits". Where did I use the phrase "most corporations"? I didn't, but if you didn't make the false claim regarding your ignorant assumptions about my intent you wouldn't have anything to whine about (next time ask instead of acting an ass).

Oh no, he's gonna block me! Whatever shall I do? Oh wait, I know.

@redbai You got it asshole, you're blocked..