5 ms·

I think rfrank meant "conservative groups", and the IRS actually apologized for doing it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-c

I think rfrank meant "conservative groups", and the IRS actually apologized for doing it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-apology-conservative-groups-2012-election/2149939/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/10/irs-...

guelo 10y ago
The IRS also was scrutinizing liberal and Occupy groups. And it was all done at the request of senators. Political groups are not supposed to claim 501c4 nonprofit status. Tea Party and Occupy groups were breaking the law so the IRS started looking into the explosion in political groups claiming non-profit status. Keywords the IRS agents were on the lookout for included "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy". Then Congressional Republicans turned it into a successful fake news witch hunt against Obama saying he was abusing his power by targeting conservatives. Read wikipedia for a mostly objective account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > Read wikipedia for a mostly objective account You don't actually believe that, do you? Wikipedia is so left-leaning it virtually capsizes.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    I'd argue that Wikipedia isn't left, but it's focus of published media, and the fact that much of the American media is left, causes this effect.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      That's a good point, and you're probably right that a lot of it is due to that. I would add my anecdotal observations that, whenever I have looked at the edit history and talk pages for anything remotely political, the non-left views are virtually shouted down and literally edited out ad nauseam. The editors by-and-large seem to have a strong left-leaning ideology.
  - edc117 10y ago
    Do you have any sourced information that suggests what is on Wikipedia is wrong? I'd love to hear it if so.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > Do you have any sourced information that suggests what is on Wikipedia is wrong? Are you implying that everything on Wikipedia is correct? > I'd love to hear it if so. This implies that you've never read anything negative about Wikipedia. I feel like, if that's the case, you must either have avoided such information, or have just gotten Internet access for the first time. If you would honestly love to hear it, then you could have already found it by using Google. Please avoid sea-lioning.
      - sanderjd 10y ago
        The implication is that they've never read any sourced information about bias on Wikipedia, not that they've never read anything negative about Wikipedia. Certainly we've all read plenty of opinion and insinuation, but factual analysis is harder to come by, not just for this question, but for all questions. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that you can't do a simple Google for factual information on a hot topic, because your results will be drowned out by opinionated noise. So your implication that you can find this "by using Google" immediately makes me think that you haven't actually seen any yourself, but are parroting opinions you've read. I haven't seen any objective analyses of Wikipedia's bias myself, but this isn't something I look for information on, and I suspect they exist somewhere. Edit: I didn't know what sea-lioning was, so I just looked it up. Asking for sources when someone makes a broad claim doesn't seem to fit the definition.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        I disagree. "Sourced information" is arbitrary, vague, and ultimately meaningless. All information is "sourced," and each person must come to their own conclusions about the validity of information. Finally, while an objective study of factual accuracy might be feasible, any study of political bias would necessarily be subjective, because despite any attempted rigor, it ultimately boils down to the researcher's judgment. Therefore, believing that Wikipedia must be unbiased unless it can be objectively proven to be biased is unreasonable. On the contrary: since Wikipedia is made by humans, and humans are necessarily biased, it must be biased. > So your implication that you can find this "by using Google" immediately makes me think that you haven't actually seen any yourself, but are parroting opinions you've read. I haven't seen any objective analyses of Wikipedia's bias myself, but this isn't something I look for information on, and I suspect they exist somewhere. Fascinating: you make an unwarranted assumption about me, then accuse me of parroting, and then admit that you yourself have neglected to even attempt the most basic search. You seem to be accusing me of what you have convicted yourself of. I perceive two definitions of sea-lioning, one of which is attempting to provoke by making demands for sources which meet arbitrary standards. It's typically followed by moving the goalposts until the respondent gives up, after which the sea-lion asserts victory. In other words, it's a form of trolling, not of serious discussion. Given the nature of the argument (whether Wikipedia is biased is necessarily subjective), and the arbitrary standard ("sourced information"), I conclude that it's sea-lioning. You're free to disagree.
- leereeves 10y ago
  > Read wikipedia for a mostly objective account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. ... While [Inspector General J. Russell George] had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[86] The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[85][89][90][91]
odonnellryan 10y ago
There are thousands of churches across the US who tell their congregation who to vote for. The IRS doesn't touch them. The right has privileges the left doesn't have, too. Unfortunately things aren't fair.
odonnellryan 10y ago
There are thousands of churches across the US who tell their congregation who to vote for. The IRS doesn't touch them. The right has privileges the left doesn't have, too. Unfortunately things aren't fair.

guelo 10y ago

The IRS also was scrutinizing liberal and Occupy groups. And it was all done at the request of senators. Political groups are not supposed to claim 501c4 nonprofit status. Tea Party and Occupy groups were breaking the law so the IRS started looking into the explosion in political groups claiming non-profit status. Keywords the IRS agents were on the lookout for included "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "9/12 Project", "progressive," "occupy," "Israel," "open source software," "medical marijuana" and "occupied territory advocacy". Then Congressional Republicans turned it into a successful fake news witch hunt against Obama saying he was abusing his power by targeting conservatives. Read wikipedia for a mostly objective account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

alphapapa 10y ago
> Read wikipedia for a mostly objective account You don't actually believe that, do you? Wikipedia is so left-leaning it virtually capsizes.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I'd argue that Wikipedia isn't left, but it's focus of published media, and the fact that much of the American media is left, causes this effect.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    That's a good point, and you're probably right that a lot of it is due to that. I would add my anecdotal observations that, whenever I have looked at the edit history and talk pages for anything remotely political, the non-left views are virtually shouted down and literally edited out ad nauseam. The editors by-and-large seem to have a strong left-leaning ideology.
- edc117 10y ago
  Do you have any sourced information that suggests what is on Wikipedia is wrong? I'd love to hear it if so.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > Do you have any sourced information that suggests what is on Wikipedia is wrong? Are you implying that everything on Wikipedia is correct? > I'd love to hear it if so. This implies that you've never read anything negative about Wikipedia. I feel like, if that's the case, you must either have avoided such information, or have just gotten Internet access for the first time. If you would honestly love to hear it, then you could have already found it by using Google. Please avoid sea-lioning.
    - sanderjd 10y ago
      The implication is that they've never read any sourced information about bias on Wikipedia, not that they've never read anything negative about Wikipedia. Certainly we've all read plenty of opinion and insinuation, but factual analysis is harder to come by, not just for this question, but for all questions. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that you can't do a simple Google for factual information on a hot topic, because your results will be drowned out by opinionated noise. So your implication that you can find this "by using Google" immediately makes me think that you haven't actually seen any yourself, but are parroting opinions you've read. I haven't seen any objective analyses of Wikipedia's bias myself, but this isn't something I look for information on, and I suspect they exist somewhere. Edit: I didn't know what sea-lioning was, so I just looked it up. Asking for sources when someone makes a broad claim doesn't seem to fit the definition.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        I disagree. "Sourced information" is arbitrary, vague, and ultimately meaningless. All information is "sourced," and each person must come to their own conclusions about the validity of information. Finally, while an objective study of factual accuracy might be feasible, any study of political bias would necessarily be subjective, because despite any attempted rigor, it ultimately boils down to the researcher's judgment. Therefore, believing that Wikipedia must be unbiased unless it can be objectively proven to be biased is unreasonable. On the contrary: since Wikipedia is made by humans, and humans are necessarily biased, it must be biased. > So your implication that you can find this "by using Google" immediately makes me think that you haven't actually seen any yourself, but are parroting opinions you've read. I haven't seen any objective analyses of Wikipedia's bias myself, but this isn't something I look for information on, and I suspect they exist somewhere. Fascinating: you make an unwarranted assumption about me, then accuse me of parroting, and then admit that you yourself have neglected to even attempt the most basic search. You seem to be accusing me of what you have convicted yourself of. I perceive two definitions of sea-lioning, one of which is attempting to provoke by making demands for sources which meet arbitrary standards. It's typically followed by moving the goalposts until the respondent gives up, after which the sea-lion asserts victory. In other words, it's a form of trolling, not of serious discussion. Given the nature of the argument (whether Wikipedia is biased is necessarily subjective), and the arbitrary standard ("sourced information"), I conclude that it's sea-lioning. You're free to disagree.
leereeves 10y ago
> Read wikipedia for a mostly objective account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. ... While [Inspector General J. Russell George] had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[86] The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[85][89][90][91]

odonnellryan 10y ago

There are thousands of churches across the US who tell their congregation who to vote for. The IRS doesn't touch them. The right has privileges the left doesn't have, too. Unfortunately things aren't fair.

odonnellryan 10y ago