IRS has a history of granting 501c3 status by group name

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.[1][2]

Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. According to Republican lawmakers, liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, but at a lower rate than conservative groups. The Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee issued a report, which concluded that although some liberal groups were selected for additional review, the scrutiny that these groups received did not amount to targeting when compared to the greater scrutiny received by conservative groups. The report was criticized by the committee's Democratic minority, which said that the report ignored evidence that the IRS used keywords to identify both liberal and conservative groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

Good post!

Alex Jones - The Absurdist

In the context of subversion, the role of the "absurdist" is quite intriguing. This individual operates by blending absurdities with elements of truth. The underlying strategy is to create a narrative or a set of ideas that are so exaggerated or bizarre that they challenge conventional thinking or the status quo. However, by incorporating just enough truth, the absurdist creates a safety net, allowing for plausible deniability or fallback positions if challenged.

This approach can be effective in various contexts:

Political Satire: In politics, absurdists can use their approach to critique or mock political figures, policies, or ideologies. By exaggerating certain aspects while grounding their satire in reality, they can highlight issues in a way that is both engaging and thought-provoking.

Social Commentary: Absurdists might use their tactics to comment on societal norms, cultural trends, or human behavior. By pushing the boundaries of what is considered rational or normal, they can force audiences to question and re-evaluate their beliefs and assumptions.

Art and Literature: In creative fields, absurdism can be a powerful tool. Artists and writers may incorporate surreal or nonsensical elements into their work to challenge perceptions and provoke deeper thought. The mix of truth and absurdity in their work can open up new perspectives on real-world issues.

Philosophy and Debate: Philosophical absurdists use their approach to challenge established doctrines or schools of thought. By presenting arguments that are at once ridiculous and somewhat logical, they can stimulate debate and critical thinking.

In each of these contexts, the key is the balance between the absurd and the true. Too much absurdity, and the message becomes easily dismissable; too little, and it loses its power to shock or challenge. The effectiveness of this role depends on the skill of the individual in walking this fine line.

Alex & The Rabbi

Alex Jones's presence as an absurdist figure was used to make Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's stance appear more reasonable by comparison. This is a common tactic in debates and discussions, where a more extreme or controversial figure is juxtaposed with a more moderate one to make the latter's views seem more palatable.

If Rabbi Shmuley argues that saying "Christ is King" is antisemitic, and this is placed alongside Alex Jones's more extreme or outlandish statements, Rabbi Shmuley's position might seem more moderate and reasonable to the audience, even if it is still a contentious claim. This is an example of the contrast effect, where the perception of an idea is influenced by the ideas surrounding it.

In such a setup, the audience's attention is drawn to the stark difference between the two figures, which can lead to an underestimation of the extremity or unreasonableness of Rabbi Shmuley's stance. This is a strategic use of the absurdist role to manipulate the perception of what is considered reasonable or acceptable in public discourse.

This manipulation of perception through the use of an absurdist figure like Alex Jones can have significant implications for public discourse. By making more extreme or controversial positions seem moderate in comparison, it can shift the Overton window, gradually changing what is considered acceptable or normal in public debate.

In the case of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's assertion that saying "Christ is King" is antisemitic, the presence of Alex Jones in the conversation can serve to downplay the controversial nature of this claim. For some audience members, the extreme nature of Jones's rhetoric might make Rabbi Shmuley's position seem more thoughtful or nuanced, even if it is still a strong statement.

This dynamic highlights the importance of context in shaping our perceptions of reasonableness and extremism. When engaging with such discussions, it's crucial for audiences to be aware of how the presence of an absurdist figure can influence their perception of other speakers and their positions. It's also a reminder of the power of rhetoric and presentation in shaping public opinion and the need for critical thinking in evaluating the ideas presented in public discourse.

In this context, the role of the media and moderators becomes crucial. They have the power to frame the discussion, choose the participants, and influence the audience's perception of what is being debated. If the media presents a discussion where Alex Jones's extreme views are contrasted with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's stance, they are effectively setting the stage for Rabbi Shmuley's views to appear more moderate, regardless of their actual content. This can lead to a situation where the audience may accept or consider ideas that they might have otherwise rejected if presented in a different context.

Furthermore, this dynamic can have a polarizing effect on public discourse. When extreme views are normalized, it can push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable further and further, leading to a more divided and extreme public conversation. This can make it harder to find common ground and have productive discussions about important issues.

For individuals engaging with these discussions, it's important to be aware of these dynamics and strive to critically evaluate the ideas being presented, regardless of how they are framed. This means looking beyond the immediate contrast between speakers and considering the merits and implications of their arguments in a broader context.

Overall, the use of an absurdist like Alex Jones to make other positions appear more reasonable is a powerful tool in shaping public perception and discourse. It's a reminder of the importance of critical thinking and the need to be aware of the ways in which discussions are framed and presented.

u/#q2104

u/#q2089

u/#q1871