President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
The largest free encyclopedia which has been evaluated as extremely accurate for years now and which has free translations in many different languages, and we are celebrating removing its tax exempt status?
I mean, you know who you’re quoting right?
Not disagreeing with the main point of your post per se and at the risk of sounding melodramatic, the Trump admin seem to be have a whiff of McCarthyism about them in this and other instances.That said, I wouldn't regard wiki as ultimately a credible source and any topic it covers would require additional fact checking. Not political, but in certain true crime cases for example
Wikipedia is not and has never meant to be an exhaustive resource. Like other encyclopedias outside of specialized sources it is meant to be an overview or starting point.
Your last comment is important. Wikipedia’s value is in its RELATIVE accuracy, not its absolute accuracy.
Not disagreeing with the main point of your post per se and at the risk of sounding melodramatic, the Trump admin seem to be have a whiff of McCarthyism about them in this and other instances.That said, I wouldn't regard wiki as ultimately a credible source and any topic it covers would require additional fact checking. Not political, but in certain true crime cases for example
Sure, but all of this covered by stating that it is an encyclopedia, which was what my post did. An encyclopedia is by definition neither a primary nor a secondary source, but a collection of references and summaries, aka. a tertiary source.
As far as encyclopedias go, Wikipedia is good one.
What makes it especially good in today's world is its transparency. Which is the reason we can know of the attempts to thwart its content for specific causes to begin with. It is also the reason it is so politically toxic to modern day "conservatism", which is largely based on lying and denial. You can do that on Wikipedia, but you'll leave evidence of what you did.
The largest free encyclopedia which has been evaluated as extremely accurate for years now and which has free translations in many different languages, and we are celebrating removing its tax exempt status?
Wikipedia is decent on non-controversial topics, but on controversial ones it is a hotbed of radical leftism/antisemitism/pro Putin/pro-china propaganda depending on the topic.
"has been evaluated" by whom exactly? the leftist fact checkers which even Facebook just fired as being horrendously biased?
maybe you guys don't understand that it's abundantly clear to us all gatekeepers these days are radically to the left, what you think is "neutral" is left, what you think is a bit on the left is already radical (compared to the median american voter)
Wikipedia is not and has never meant to be an exhaustive resource. Like other encyclopedias outside of specialized sources it is meant to be an overview or starting point.
Your last comment is important. Wikipedia’s value is in its RELATIVE accuracy, not its absolute accuracy.
which is beyond terrible on controversial topic. Even ****ing CNN is less biased than wiki on controversial topic these days, and CNN is utter partisan trash.
Sure, but all of this covered by stating that it is an encyclopedia, which was what my post did. An encyclopedia is by definition neither a primary nor a secondary source, but a collection of references and summaries, aka. a tertiary source.
As far as encyclopedias go, Wikipedia is good one.
.
to check what genotypes of rosemary plants there are, yes.
also to check who first invented some stuff, or how many parsec away is a certain solar system from ours.
if you believe that Wikipedia is a good source for present day controversial politically hot topics I have several bridges to sell to you
to check what genotypes of rosemary plants there are, yes.
also to check who first invented some stuff, or how many parsec away is a certain solar system from ours.
if you believe that Wikipedia is a good source for present day controversial politically hot topics I have several bridges to sell to you
It's very good on that as well, because you can see exactly how it is edited and the discussions behind said edits.
And this is why modern day "conservatives" loathe it, because their usual tactics would be so easy to spot.
And the irony of coming into this discussion with a link to Twitter, an algorithm-driven shitfest that spoonfeeds you echochamber drivel with absolutely no transparency whatsoever, is palpable.
Wikipedia is decent on non-controversial topics, but on controversial ones it is a hotbed of radical leftism/antisemitism/pro Putin/pro-china propaganda depending on the topic."has been evaluated" by whom exactly? the leftist fact checkers which even Facebook just fired as being horrendously biased?maybe you guys don't understand that it's
You always make me chuckle when you don’t even recognize your own propaganda you keep doing here by your radical bias anti science right wing rhetoric…😀
Luciom - Have you bothered to read the 501(c)3 section of the law yet to find out why you don't know what you're talking about?
Luciom - Have you bothered to read the 501(c)3 section of the law yet to find out why you don't know what you're talking about?
If you think the bolded will ever happen...
Luciom - Have you bothered to read the 501(c)3 section of the law yet to find out why you don't know what you're talking about?
have you bothered looking at case law there?
as with most things in the USA, it's a real mess, but there is a decent shot at going after organizations who abuse tax exempt status to push political propaganda.
you might think success is a low probability occurrence there but you attacked the whole idea as if it was unfair or wrong to go after tax exempt status of politically partisan "charitable" entities.
or as if that went against 1a principles.
it doesn't at all, and it's quite right for the GVMNT to go after wiki for propaganda.
if you want to discuss the chances gvmnt succeeds fine, let's do that, but you attacked me debaichedly as if there was an incoherence between claiming that meta , x and other private for profit entities have 1a rights, while entities that gave fiscal privileges don't have the same.
have you bothered looking at case law there?as with most things in the USA, it's a real mess, but there is a decent shot at going after organizations who abuse tax exempt status to push political propaganda.you might think success is a low probability occurrence there but you attacked the whole idea as if it was unfair or wrong to go after tax exempt status of politically parti
About religious entities that promotes right wing agenda ?
religion is unfortunately different.
but the NRA should lose tax exempt status as well obviously.
now the problem is leftist organizations are infinitely more powerful these days than right-wing ones, leftist basically military control the NGO world (and colleges).
that's why it's rational to focus against them infinitely more than against right-wing abusers of tax exempt status.
also because leftists values are objectively far worse for society so if you have to give priority to which problem is bigger, it's them .
religion is unfortunately different.but the NRA should lose tax exempt status as well obviously.now the problem is leftist organizations are infinitely more powerful these days than right-wing ones, leftist basically military control the NGO world (and colleges).that's why it's rational to focus against them infinitely more than against right-wing abusers of tax exempt status.a
- Why ?
Propaganda is propaganda ….
But yes , since religion is the US is mostly conservative I get your point .
Freedom is for us only and not to be shared .
- No it’s not objectively .
Only for you it is .
But to believe ngo and universities have siding to be big threat in the world I mean shrug .
Yeah I guess knowledge can be perceive as a big threat for certain sphere of the population .
yes because FB and X don't have privileges by law predicated on doing the public interest?Are you real?You want to do propaganda you are super free to do it in the USA luckly enough (thx to the 1a), but not with fiscal privileges What has to stop is taxpayer funded propaganda, not propaganda itself.Section 501(c)(3) EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS PROPAGANDA by entities who register as c
I think the vast majority of 501c3 entities engage in propaganda. Possibly nearly nall of them.
religion is unfortunately different.but the NRA should lose tax exempt status as well obviously.now the problem is leftist organizations are infinitely more powerful these days than right-wing ones, leftist basically military control the NGO world (and colleges).that's why it's rational to focus against them infinitely more than against right-wing abusers of tax exempt status.a
given the vast amount of right-wing religious and social orgs I’m not sure this is even true. I’d have to see data on this.
Irish anti immigration protestors seem to favour a Putin Trump and um, Conor McGregor alliance. 😵
I'm going to assume you haven't read the law or are being intentionally obtuse about it. Here's another hint - I was a non-profit finance executive for over 25 years. I know what I'm talking about.
https://x.com/NewsWire_US/status/1916490...
Trump approval falls to 41%, disapproval rises to 59% — CNN poll
69% say Trump is not focusing enough on lowering prices, 62% say focused too much on tariffs — CBS poll
/
Looks like the people are spot on on the issues. One can hope Trump actually cares about approval (afaik even rightwing pollsters which he trusts are coming out with similar numbers)
I doubt him caring about his approval amongst the peasants means he going to do anything remotely helpful or positive, especially for the long-term.
