A tax haven is a nation with low to no taxes, where foreigners can operate for tax purposes.
The term you are looking for, and almost had, was "tax avoidance".
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It is tax evasion that is illegal.
You might want a little self-reflection about that last sentence and how it paints you as precisely the sort of person that others are rightfully worried about.
There are more important things than money. Having your name dragged through the mud, having people presume you are a disgusting sexist before they have even met you, these are things that can destroy a person regardless of their wealth.
Comments do not fall on a spectrum between "absolutely sexist" and "absolutely not sexist".
Comments exist as fixed points in space, and the observers fall on a spectrum of "absolutely going to call the comment sexist" and "absolutely going to call the comment not sexist".
The men who are "clamming up" are judging the audience of their comments and deciding that the potential costs of honesty are just too high compared to the benefits.
They know that they will no longer get the benefit of the doubt and that they will be convicted without trial. If the punishment for traffic infringements was death and you were immediately judged, convicted and executed by the police officer on the scene, there will be a large number of people who would simply stop driving.
The problem being highlighted here isn't bad communicators. The problem is good communicators being incentivized out of communicating.
It says something about you that you could not comprehend something that obvious.
Imagine if the person in charge of AI Ethics converted to a fundamentalist Christian sect. Their ethics changed and now they think LGBT people should be discriminated against explicitly. Nobody supporting Margaret Mitchell would be defending this new convert's application of the personal ethics in their job. That proves this is merely a convenient argument on their part, not a principled one.
Yes, ethics is agnostic to one's personal convictions when it is your job.
Same as how defense lawyers leave their personal sense of justice out of their jobs.
Same as how sports referees don't let their childhood fandom of a particular team affect their calls.
Same as how actors will be physically intimate with people the opposite of the sexual preference.
One line, one idea. That's the goal. Your eye doesn't need to move if you can get the information you need from the first 30 characters.
Two lines, one idea. That's a recipe for cognitive disaster. It forces you to read the entirety of the preceding line to understand what is happening on the next one.
As a good example, reading logs. You can scan down the log to find what you want. Imagine if the time was placed at the end of the line. It doesn't matter how many characters on a line in that case, the reading the log is a massive cognitive load.
Telling people you aren't a racist and didn't mean the thing they consider to be racist in a racist way is in no way denying the other party's feelings are valid.
"Fake news" was first used in the 17th century. Today, it is a term deployed by President Trump against news outlets he doesn't like. But he didn't invent the term. He heard it from someone using it against news outlets he does like.
> The very term "social justice warrior" is an invention of the reactionary right.
No, it wasn't. It was invented by the Left, unironically. They would call themselves Social Justice Warriors. Many leftists still proudly maintain that they "fight for social justice". Same energy. It was only later that the term was used derisively by the right, putting the term in ironic quotation marks.
It is exactly the same as "fake news"; originally used by someone in the lefty media (CNN?) to deride Fox News, but popularised by Trump against CNN. Or did you think Trump came up with that all by himself?
Feminism wasn't just standing around doing nothing. Grifters and frauds exploited feminism and attacked games and game players. Feminists fell for the grifters and fraudsters grift and fraud and dutifully went after game. Then they went after those who defended games. Then they went after those who defended the defenders of games.
Those on the gamers side of gamergate are the only reason the purity spiral was broken. And that includes a very large number of people who weren't originally on the gamers side of gamergate.
> I think most people agree racism exists and is bad.
Sure, by the definition of racism that you and I would use. But not by the one that's been weaponised in these purity spirals. By their definition, as explained by the academic interviewed in the podcast, it is literally impossible for someone raised in modern society NOT to be racist. Taking offense at being called a racist is more evidence of racism. Trying to explain how you aren't racist is more evidence of racism.
It is like Original sin, but without any path to redemption.
What sort of solution is this supposed to be? I mean, who thinks the reason homeless people are homeless is just because they don't have a roof over their heads?
Spend money on mental health services! It's not rocket science!
Oh great, another non-economist getting famous for criticizing economics from a position of comprehensive ignorance.
Modern economics has more than enough critics WITHIN the economics field. People who wouldn't say something as stupid as "Economists still teach their students that the primary role of government ... is to guarantee price stability!".
Seriously, this has NEVER been remotely close to true. When you say something like that, you effectively lose the section of the audience that knows the something about economics, and are instead rousing the ignorant rabble.
The field of Economics has problems (such as an over-reliance on mathematical models), but instead of any of THAT being discussed we have the argument centering around some fantasy-world view of economics and economists!
Turning over the leaseholder has a cost all by itself. But more importantly, there is also the reputation damage you'd sustain by doing this.
Consider, any perspective leaseholder who googles the property could find that out that you're kicking out the tenant to increase the rent. That would drastically reduce the potential demand from people looking for the security of a long-term occupancy.
So, yes, it might be possible for a landlord to do that. But if he does it twice, he will earn a reputation and only attract short-term tenants.
This means, it is an option only for the most short-sighted and stupid landlords.
Almost every "movement" is a teen movement.
They're the ones who feel most passionate about, well ... anything, the ones who have had the least life experience countering what's being "revealed" to them, the ones with time on their hands, the ones with few other distracting responsibilities, and the ones most likely to believe in simple solutions to problems they don't fully comprehend.
Teens are the ideal foot soldiers for any movement.
Yes, on both sides.