Daniel

“Third, DAFs (donor-advised funds) allow private foundations to avoid the public scrutiny that Congress wanted them to have. If a private foundation makes a direct donation to a hate group or other questionable charity, that information is available to the public through public disclosure of tax returns. But if the private foundation wants to avoid this disclosure, it can simply make a distribution to a DAF, then make the donation to the hate group from the DAF, and no one is the wiser.45 While DAFs do publish their distributions, they list them over thousands of pages, and the information is disconnected from any particular donor.

45. Charitable gifts to hate groups can have devastating effects both within and outside the United States. Proposed legislation in Uganda imposing the death penalty for homosexuals was supported by significant charitable donations from United States taxpayers, many of which came from donor-advised funds. — Lydia Namubiro, “Charity Loophole Lets US Donors Give Far-Right Groups $272m in Secret,” Open Democracy (July 5, 2023).”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“Because so many of our beliefs depend upon the culture we share with others, diagnosing patients from other cultures raises many problems. If hearing voices talking to you is a widely shared experience within a culture, then this experience cannot be treated as a sign of schizophrenia. On the other hand, people from within the same culture can easily recognize the kind of experiences that would be considered signs of madness.

In Northwick Park Hospital there were many patients who were adherents of religions with which the staff were not familiar – fundamental Christian sects as well as branches of oriental faiths. We could not be sure if it was reasonable for a man belonging to a Christian sect founded in California in 1962 to believe that by wearing a half-pound cross on a wire round his neck he pleased God, who would then pass him messages by directing his eyes to particular biblical texts. We could not be sure if it was reasonable for a devout Hindu to interpret individuals and animals in the local setting as manifestations of Krishna reborn. Reading accounts of the beliefs of adherents to these sects did not help us, but the relevant spiritual leaders, on the basis of a few moments’ conversation, could state with confidence that these ideas were due to illness. We therefore made a practice of always consulting them. Typically they considered that the patient believed literally in what was intended as a metaphor. The patients’ ideas were much too concrete.”
― Christopher D. Frith, Schizophrenia: A Very Short Introduction

“One $7 million advertising campaign ran this advertisement: “When you die, the IRS can bury your family in crippling tax bills. It can cost them everything.” The ad was later criticized by FactCheck.org, an independent watchdog run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center for presenting a “misleading picture of who is actually affected by the estate tax since the vast amount of families are not affected by the estate tax.” The media campaign was particularly fierce and misleading when it came to family farms and businesses. According to one ad: “The death tax is killing American businesses.... To pay the death tax, many are forced to sell.”
It is striking that this campaign was so effective considering that it was based on such blatant distortions of the truth. Opponents of the estate tax repeal had written their own reports and op-eds explaining the limited application of the estate tax and the protections—real and potential—for family farms and businesses. These received little attention. To this, Luntz had a theory. As he explained in a New Yorker interview with Nicholas Lemann: “If you introduce a subject using language that will produce a strong opinion, no subsequent information will get people to change their minds. This is particularly the case when the competing claim is based on numbers — like in the estate tax where opponents of reform argued about lost revenue, high exemption amounts and the small percentage of the public likely to be subject to the tax. But discussing numbers is never a winning strategy.” Describing politicians who talk about numbers, Luntz added: “It’s like quicksand; the more you struggle the deeper you sink.”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“In some cases, those who express extreme views start believing the things they share even if their initial goal was only to increase their standing within a group. And then there are cases where the theories being shared are so outlandish or unlikely that we have to wonder: Do they really believe these things? If we were to sit the person down for a polygraph test and quiz them about whether they truly think the earth is flat, the grieving parents who lost their children to gun violence are just actors, or Hillary Clinton is a pedophile, what would we find? Would they (or the lie detector machine) reveal that perhaps their beliefs are not quite so literal? If so, why are they spreading such lies? Understanding the mechanics of social groups—especially those connected by shared beliefs, such as religious groups, sects, and cults—can help shed light on this question. As Jonathan Haidt suggested, the deliberate sharing of a lie can act as a shibboleth—a kind of linguistic password that identifies people within a group. “Many who study religion have noted that it’s the very impossibility of a claim that makes it a good signal of one’s commitment to the faith,” he wrote. “You don’t need faith to believe obvious things. Proclaiming that the election was stolen surely does play an identity-advertising role in today’s America.”
― Dan Ariely, Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things