Interesting looking data leak from a Panama company that sold shell companies to the world's rich and famous. Published by the ICIJ, a group of 400 journalists.
https://panamapapers.icij.org/
Here is how the story developed:
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3c3495adf4/
I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.
Or maybe not, seems he resigned.
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.
Or maybe not, seems he resigned.
Looks like several Icelandic cabinet members may also be incriminated.
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.
Or maybe not, seems he resigned.
He did? I thought he just walked out of the Guardian's interview.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/apr/03/icelands-prime-minister-walks-out-of-interview-over-tax-haven-question-video
:lol:
The largest leak in history at over 2 TB. Of the names released so far, some are basically expected (Putin and his friends), others less so (Iceland's PM, Lionel Messi). For those in democratic countries, could the info in the leak be used to prosecute them?
I foresee some busy months for the rich and powerful.
I am investing my savings in rope and lamp post shares.
Norway's biggest bank, DNB, threw away years of PR with the Panama papers being published.
I wonder if Clinton or Trump are listed?
Probably not. Clinton has her foundation. Trump launders his money in casinos.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 03, 2016, 06:16:39 PM
The largest leak in history at over 2 TB. Of the names released so far, some are basically expected (Putin and his friends), others less so (Iceland's PM, Lionel Messi). For those in democratic countries, could the info in the leak be used to prosecute them?
Messi has been under investigation for tax fraud for a while. This was already known I believe.
There's some other Spanish people, but they seem small fry.
Putin's musician friend. :lmfao:
It so not subtle.
Quote from: celedhring on April 04, 2016, 02:44:30 AM
There's some other Spanish people, but they seem small fry.
More names are pouring out, and they seem far more interesting than expected:
- Pedro Almodóvar
- Pilar de Borbón (the sister of former king Juan Carlos)
Same sister that led to a scandal before?
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 03:37:03 AM
Same sister that led to a scandal before?
No, that was the sister of the current king (Felipe), daughter of the old one (Juan Carlos).
The monarchy can't ill-afford yet another scandal.
So, does anyone have cliffnotes of what this scandal is actually about? Just people putting money in foreign accounts and buying shelf companies or is there more to that?
For example reading this part:
QuoteGenerally speaking, owning an offshore company is not illegal in itself. In fact, establishing an offshore company can be seen as a logical step for a broad range of business transactions. However, a look through the Panama Papers very quickly reveals that concealing the identities of the true company owners was the primary aim in the vast majority of cases. From the outset, the journalists had their work cut out for them. The providers of offshore companies – among them banks, lawyers, and investment advisors – often keep their clients' names secret and use proxies. In turn, the proxies' tracks then lead to heads of state, important officials, and millionaires. Over the course of the international project, journalists cooperated with one another to investigate thousands of leads: they examined evidence, studied contracts, and spoke with experts.
That's a pretty normal and legitimate business practice. So is tax planning/optimisation. I know from experience that journalists often misunderstand (or deliberately misinterpret - being bitter bitches they are, since they are usually paid shit but wield considerable power to destroy, so they are often on some sort of a crusade against people who actually work hard and do stuff) such arrangements and present them in a sensationalist way.
Or this:
QuoteFor an extra fee, Mossack Fonseca provides a sham director and, if desired, conceals the company's true shareholder.
Again, a standard practice of shelf company providers is to provide an administrative director who does stuff like tax and court filings, collects mail etc. Using a word "sham" to describe someone like this is pretty defamatory.
And yes, many countries do not require company register to disclose the shareholder's identity. That is not "concealing", that is acting in accordance with law. If you have a problem with that, petition the legislators to change the law.
In case of Hungary, offshore companies with invisible ownerships appear as part owners of companies receiving huge amounts of either tax money, or from doing some lucrative business created/monopolised by the state. For example gas transit to Hungary, and the selling of "citizenship bonds".
So I am pretty sure the aim with these is to hide the true interests behind those companies, as they would be politically, even criminally, uncomofortable for politicians.
So yeah, having read the article, it seems the biggest scandal is that Sueddeutsche Zeitung journalists bought or otherwise acquired stolen data in violation of law and they are now trying to present themselves as heroes rather than thieves.
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2016, 03:59:39 AM
In case of Hungary, offshore companies with invisible ownerships appear as part owners of companies receiving huge amounts of either tax money, or from doing some lucrative business created/monopolised by the state. For example gas transit to Hungary, and the selling of "citizenship bonds".
So I am pretty sure the aim with these is to hide the true interests behind those companies, as they would be politically, even criminally, uncomofortable for politicians.
Yeah but it is legal. So change the law if you don't like it. Complaining that businesses make use of legally available ways to optimise their operations is idiotic.
It's illegal in Spain, too, to not disclose holdings abroad past a certain threshold (which is rather low). Several of the Spanish names presented in the list would have fallen foul of that. And once you start with that felony, then comes the reason why they did that.
Lol, it looks like the company was created the same month Juan Carlos became king of Spain in 1974, so the infanta might have been a figurehead for the king himself. :lol:
(the king's finances are tightly controlled and he's not allowed to acquire property or earn money outside of his stipend).
Not reporting your taxable income is a crime here. DNB helped thousands to stash away lots of money in the Seychelles.
And despite your trolling, Marti, these journalists work under the risk of death exposing this. Which most tax lawyers don't.
Marti, this is about money laundering, tax evasion and breach of UN sanctions on a massive scale. And the SZ did not buy the information, they were given it freely under guarantee of anonymity for the source (who understandadly fears for his life).
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
Someone should check if his name is on the list.
Quote from: Malicious Intent on April 04, 2016, 04:22:05 AM
Marti, this is about money laundering, tax evasion and breach of UN sanctions on a massive scale. And the SZ did not buy the information, they were given it freely under guarantee of anonymity for the source (who understandadly fears for his life).
Well, you said it better.
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2016, 04:30:34 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
Someone should check if his name is on the list.
I am not rich enough. :(
Should've used that firm, Marti. :hug:
I actually did consider moving my savings abroad but mainly to protect them against PiS and/or Putin.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
It's you who have gone full Anita Sarkezian on Facebook.
Seriously, I may be wrong but I always thought you were centre-right - was it someone else or did you change? I mean right now you have gone entirely regressive left.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:04:59 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
It's you who have gone full Anita Sarkezian on Facebook.
Seriously, I may be wrong but I always thought you were centre-right - was it someone else or did you change? I mean right now you have gone entirely regressive left.
Being centre-right means I cannot actively oppose racism and misogyny? What?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 05:08:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:04:59 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
It's you who have gone full Anita Sarkezian on Facebook.
Seriously, I may be wrong but I always thought you were centre-right - was it someone else or did you change? I mean right now you have gone entirely regressive left.
Being centre-right means I cannot actively oppose racism and misogyny? What?
No, then you're regressive left like me. Get with the programme, mate.
Looks like even your other friends agree with me. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:10:55 AM
Looks like even your other friends agree with me. :lol:
Another Pole, as it happens (and about 0.01% of my friends). But then, Poland is pretty much turning itself into Russia lately, so it's not surprising. :P
PS. And don't sidestep. Does your definition of center-right include not opposing racism and misogyny?
Well it sucks but then Scandinavia is turning into Saudi Arabia, so I'd still pick the lesser of two evils. ;)
Riiight.
You keep telling yourself that, it might make it easier when Poland recriminalizes homosexuality. ;)
My definition of centre right includes basing your attitudes on fact and logic, not emotion. An emotional article from some feminist about facing "rampant mysogyny" and "death threats and rape threats" in a roleplaying Call of Cthulhu community sounds incredible at best and fabricated at worst (and likely to be the latter if the Rolling Stone "rape scandal" and gamergate taught us anything) so sharing that on Facebook with an apocalyptic commentary makes you look unhinged, especially combined with your ethusiastic attitudes about Islam.
My definition of not basing your attitudes on emotion and empathy is a sociopath. Are you seriously claiming that logic is the only factor we should consider in our decisions? Are we robots, according to you?
PS. I'm an atheist, so I don't have enthusiastic attitudes about any religion. Get your facts straight, at least, since you claim to love them so much.
As a Facebook friend of both of you, I am going to ask you nicely to put this to rest.
If you have no conscience nor emotion, you don't stand up for gay rights as a hetero either. So shut it, Marti. You're barking up all the wrong trees today.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 05:24:49 AM
My definition of not basing your attitudes on emotion and empathy is a sociopath.
Wow, ok no more questions. It's a good thing that your side is losing the public discourse. Would prefer it is to someone more savory than the populist right but I guess you have to take the good with the bad.
Well, logic would dictate that I shouldn't care about gay rights, since there is no benefit for me in doing so. :P However, I think we've both made our points clear, so I'm done for today.
See, this is another problem with regressive left - you perceive social reality not in the context of universal rights but "gay rights", "women rights", "Muslim rights" etc.
I don't care for your support of "gay rights" - I think gay people should simply have the same rights as everyone else, and this includes freedom from violence, government or religious persecution and freedom to live their life as they choose.
And if I run a bakery I want to have a right to refuse to cater to any wedding or party I choose.
Well, I agree.
I still don't understand this lashing out.
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 05:47:18 AM
Well, I agree.
I still don't understand this lashing out.
It is Marti? :huh:
These are universal rights yes, but you have to define them in the context of those communities that are denied them. It's not very useful to talk about them otherwise. I mean, opponents of gay marriage in Finland have argued that everyone already has the universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so everyone is already equal and there is no need for change.
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.
Oh he's feeling the heat alright. It's more the outright lying about his ,shall we say, tax-optimized finances than the fact of them that'll burn him.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 05:53:16 AM
These are universal rights yes, but you have to define them in the context of those communities that are denied them. It's not very useful to talk about them otherwise. I mean, opponents of gay marriage in Finland have argued that everyone already has the universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so everyone is already equal and there is no need for change.
Ok, fine, but I think this is a crux of the debate - whether the universal right is to marry a person of your choosing (irrespective of sex) or marry a person of the opposite sex only. It is a legitimate debate, though, I think and I'd rather we went through that route (which may take longer to achieve, say, marriage equality) than take a short cut through "gays are a special class so should get to marry whom they want" because then you end up with a legitimate question about polygamy.
Incidentally, I don't think gay marriage is as important as other protections, such as protection against discrimination in employment or protection from violence.
I thought we all in general had a legal right not to be beaten up just for the sake of it.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 06:21:49 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 05:53:16 AM
These are universal rights yes, but you have to define them in the context of those communities that are denied them. It's not very useful to talk about them otherwise. I mean, opponents of gay marriage in Finland have argued that everyone already has the universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, so everyone is already equal and there is no need for change.
Ok, fine, but I think this is a crux of the debate - whether the universal right is to marry a person of your choosing (irrespective of sex) or marry a person of the opposite sex only. It is a legitimate debate, though, I think and I'd rather we went through that route (which may take longer to achieve, say, marriage equality) than take a short cut through "gays are a special class so should get to marry whom they want" because then you end up with a legitimate question about polygamy.
Incidentally, I don't think gay marriage is as important as other protections, such as protection against discrimination in employment or protection from violence.
Well, over here actually the argument of what you call "regressive left" (or as we call them, the left, the Greens, and the liberal right) is precisely that any consenting adult should be able to marry another consenting adult regardless of gender, and the conservative right argues that gays are demanding special rights for themselves.
Incidentally, I have no problem with polygamy provided it includes consent from all parties and is not dependent on gender. Actually, IMO marriage itself should be a private contract between two consenting people, with the state merely acting as guarantor of the contract rather than deciding who can and cannot enter it. And naturally, you can enter into such contracts with anyone and any number of people you choose.
I agree with your last sentence, though it's all part of the whole movement to improve attitudes towards gay people.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:18:48 AM
My definition of centre right includes basing your attitudes on fact and logic, not emotion. An emotional article from some feminist about facing "rampant mysogyny" and "death threats and rape threats" in a roleplaying Call of Cthulhu community sounds incredible at best and fabricated at worst (and likely to be the latter if the Rolling Stone "rape scandal" and gamergate taught us anything) so sharing that on Facebook with an apocalyptic commentary makes you look unhinged, especially combined with your ethusiastic attitudes about Islam.
I'm disappointed in you Marti. I haven't read the original source, but you must have seen evidence that any woman who has a strong opinion on any online channel is at risk of misogyny at best, and rape and death threats at worst. It's a real, frightening and all-too-frequent occurrence. You choosing not to believing this, plus using feminist and emotional as derogatory terms, makes me sad.
Yours truly,
Emotional Feminist
Brazen, I didn't use the word "feminist" as derogatory - just a descriptive (although "third wave feminist" was probably the more appropriate term). The article drew parallels between online threats and Islamic terrorism, calling the former "white male terrorism". I find this stupid, emotional and frankly, insulting to actual victims of Islamic terrorism (not just those in Brussels, but flogged rape victims, beheaded gays and apostates etc. in countries with Sharia law). I'm sorry you are disappointed in me.
Yours truly,
Sociopathic Mysogyne
In which case sorry for taking your post out of context. Just as well no-one here ever does that :P
A man calling a woman a feminist always puts me on guard because surely the default position is for women to believe women and men should be treated equally and therefore NOT believing so should be more worthy of pointing out.
Here's the original blog entry in question which I posted on my FB wall: http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem
Not once in the entire text are the words Islamic or Muslim mentioned.
But she calls it "white male terrorism"!
Anyways, my post was made in the context of attacking Solmyr. I support feminism and gender equality and consider myself a feminist (but in these days third wave and fourth wave feminism has gone over the top - and yeah I also hate "buzzwords" like this as they signal a lot more than they should). Also I am now going through a anti-SJW phase so sorry sometimes nuance is lost in my posting (just as well noone else does it on Languish). :P
Frankly that's my current problem with Languish - I use it to post outrageous and exaggerated opinions and sometimes I worry this affects my opinion from people whom I know in real life. :P
I'm skeptical of the notion that fourth wave feminism even exists. From any of the scant articles on it, it doesn't really seem to have different aims than third wave feminism. Of course, it is probably attractive to try to carve out a scholarly notion that feminism has moved on from third wave feminism because of technology.
Quote from: garbon on April 04, 2016, 08:17:17 AM
I'm skeptical of the notion that fourth wave feminism even exists. From any of the scant articles on it, it doesn't really seem to have different aims than third wave feminism. Of course, it is probably attractive to try to carve out a scholarly notion that feminism has moved on from third wave feminism because of technology.
Fair enough but I think a lot of people (including many self-proclaimed feminists) already even third wave feminism to be objectionable.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 08:10:43 AM
But she calls it "white male terrorism"!
Terrorism is not limited to just being Islamic, you know.
Anyway, the derailing of this thread must be some kind of record even for Languish. :P
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 04:15:03 AM
Not reporting your taxable income is a crime here.
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
There could be other legitimate reasons too. See, if I were the ukrainien president, with half my country controlled by russians or pro-russians groups, I'd like to insure myself a little in case they do make another big push in the near future (which is not impossible, given Russia's track record and general mo under Putin). Having an anonymous offshore account would make sure I can safely flee the country with my family in case of emergency.
Same goes for the Saudi King. Just because I govern a shitty country filled to the brim with radicals where banks are not allowed to pay interests does not mean I want to keep my money there ;)
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 08:01:03 AM
Here's the original blog entry in question which I posted on my FB wall: http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem
Not once in the entire text are the words Islamic or Muslim mentioned.
I feel for her, having joined the gaming "community" as a teenager, having to endure my female characters being graphically raped, and having animal/woman porn being shown in the background of a charity endurance gaming session.
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 08:01:03 AM
Here's the original blog entry in question which I posted on my FB wall: http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem
Not once in the entire text are the words Islamic or Muslim mentioned.
I feel for her, having joined the gaming "community" as a teenager, having to endure my female characters being graphically raped, and having animal/woman porn being shown in the background of a charity endurance gaming session.
Ok that's weird. :huh:
Not on par with terrorism, but still bizarre.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 08:10:43 AM
But she calls it "white male terrorism"!
Having read the article she gives a widely accepted definition of terrorism and shows exactly how the examples she gives, perpetrated by white males, fit the description. So I don't see the problem. And definitely no direct comparison to Islamic fundamentalist, IRA, Zionist,Spanish separatist or anti federal government terror. Considering one key aim of terrorism is to make a sector of society too scared to carry out its normal business, attempting to stop gamer girls gaming through threatening behaviour fits the bill.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
It's tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. Good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841)
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:53:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 08:10:43 AM
But she calls it "white male terrorism"!
Having read the article she gives a widely accepted definition of terrorism and shows exactly how the examples she gives, perpetrated by white males, fit the description. So I don't see the problem. And definitely no direct comparison to Islamic fundamentalist, IRA, Zionist,Spanish separatist or anti federal government terror. Considering one key aim of terrorism is to make a sector of society too scared to carry out its normal business, attempting to stop gamer girls gaming through threatening behaviour fits the bill.
Really? I think it stretches the definition of the word so much it becomes meaningless. And the fact that she does not make a direct comparison to actual terrorism does not make it better - it still means she compares two phenomenons of completely different intensity and scope.
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:45:12 AM
I feel for her, having joined the gaming "community" as a teenager, having to endure my female characters being graphically raped, and having animal/woman porn being shown in the background of a charity endurance gaming session.
Wow. How did you come to game with people like that? That is waaaay outside what is expected in a tabletop session.
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
It's tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. Good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841)
I think Viper's point is that you may want to have an offshore account even if you have paid all the requisite taxes. For example, when you live in a country that does not respect private property.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 08:57:54 AM
Really? I think it stretches the definition of the word so much it becomes meaningless. And the fact that she does not make a direct comparison to actual terrorism does not make it better - it still means she compares two phenomenons of completely different intensity and scope.
Threatening people with violence and death in order to control them sounds like terrorism to me.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 09:00:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 08:57:54 AM
Really? I think it stretches the definition of the word so much it becomes meaningless. And the fact that she does not make a direct comparison to actual terrorism does not make it better - it still means she compares two phenomenons of completely different intensity and scope.
Threatening people with violence and death in order to control them sounds like terrorism to me.
It depends on how credible the threats are - which, in case of actual terrorists is supported by the fact that they actually commit acts of violence and kill people - not just threaten them. You are confusing terrorism with bullying.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 08:59:51 AM
Wow. How did you come to game with people like that? That is waaaay outside what is expected in a tabletop session.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
The early 80s was culturally and societally far more removed from the present than we remember.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:02:54 AM
It depends on how credible the threats are - which, in case of actual terrorists is supported by the fact that they actually commit acts of violence and kill people - not just threaten them. You are confusing terrorism with bullying.
Threats of rape are perfectly credible in a society where tens of thousands of people are raped every year. Likewise if I carried around my open carry fire arm and kept threatening to shoot people well that would be pretty credible. People get shot all the time.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 08:59:51 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:45:12 AM
I feel for her, having joined the gaming "community" as a teenager, having to endure my female characters being graphically raped, and having animal/woman porn being shown in the background of a charity endurance gaming session.
Wow. How did you come to game with people like that? That is waaaay outside what is expected in a tabletop session.
Yeah, that's pretty extreme. There's plenty more gaming girls than when I started playing in the late 80s, though. It was a pretty closed male territory back then so I can picture why things like the ones Brazen relates could happen.
I am not saying it is not criminal behaviour, I am saying it is not terrorism. It's like with all those words for bad things like racism, fascism or nazi - they have become meaningless thanks to people who broaden their definition so much they cover entire ranges of behaviours ranging from simply bad to genocidal and attrocious (and ending up depriving these words of their power and making it less possible to defend against actual terrorism, racism, fascisms or nazis).
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
It's tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. Good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841)
I think Viper's point is that you may want to have an offshore account even if you have paid all the requisite taxes. For example, when you live in a country that does not respect private property.
Well, for the part of DNB's Norwegian customers, it was all for tax avoidance purposes. And illegal.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:08:29 AM
I am not saying it is not criminal behaviour, I am saying it is not terrorism. It's like with all those words for bad things like racism, fascism or nazi - they have become meaningless thanks to people who broaden their definition so much they cover entire ranges of behaviours ranging from simply bad to genocidal and attrocious (and ending up depriving these words of their power and making it less possible to defend against actual terrorism, racism, fascisms or nazis).
Well there is such a thing as a 'terroristic threat'.
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 09:10:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
It's tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. Good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841)
I think Viper's point is that you may want to have an offshore account even if you have paid all the requisite taxes. For example, when you live in a country that does not respect private property.
Well, for the part of DNB's Norwegian customers, it was all for tax avoidance purposes. And illegal.
Well, I guess Norwegian justice system can fire all the police and the judges, because Norgy is able to decide whether something is illegal or not just on the basis of a sketchy press article. Yay.
Quote from: celedhring on April 04, 2016, 09:08:15 AM
Yeah, that's pretty extreme. There's plenty more gaming girls than when I started playing in the late 80s, though. It was a pretty closed male territory back then so I can picture why things like the ones Brazen relates could happen.
Maybe. But sitting around with my male friends describing graphic sex? How creepy and awkward would that be?
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 09:11:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:08:29 AM
I am not saying it is not criminal behaviour, I am saying it is not terrorism. It's like with all those words for bad things like racism, fascism or nazi - they have become meaningless thanks to people who broaden their definition so much they cover entire ranges of behaviours ranging from simply bad to genocidal and attrocious (and ending up depriving these words of their power and making it less possible to defend against actual terrorism, racism, fascisms or nazis).
Well there is such a thing as a 'terroristic threat'.
But not every threat against a person is terroristic. If a robber threatens you with a gun so you would give him your money, it is not terrorism (even though by that article's definition it would fit the bill).
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 09:12:24 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 04, 2016, 09:08:15 AM
Yeah, that's pretty extreme. There's plenty more gaming girls than when I started playing in the late 80s, though. It was a pretty closed male territory back then so I can picture why things like the ones Brazen relates could happen.
Maybe. But sitting around with my male friends describing graphic sex? How creepy and awkward would that be?
I know. I played my fair bit of roleplaying games both as a teenager and an adult and never even encountered anything close to that. And we had women in the group.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
But not every threat against a person is terroristic. If a robber threatens you with a gun so you would give him your money, it is not terrorism (even though by that article's definition it would fit the bill).
The intent here is obviously to generate fear and terror though. The Robber doesn't care about that, he or she just wants my money.
That's like saying that a school bully threatening to beat up a kid unless he cuts his long hair is also engaging in terrorism.
The bottom line is that we have tools and laws to combat terrorism. They are agreed on the basis of the extreme danger posed by actual terrorism and the consensus that you need special tools (often suspending or limiting civil freedoms) to do that. Extending that definition to include what is effectively schoolyard or online bullying puts the entire system on its head.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 09:12:24 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 04, 2016, 09:08:15 AM
Yeah, that's pretty extreme. There's plenty more gaming girls than when I started playing in the late 80s, though. It was a pretty closed male territory back then so I can picture why things like the ones Brazen relates could happen.
Maybe. But sitting around with my male friends describing graphic sex? How creepy and awkward would that be?
Lots, no doubt about that. But I can see it happening. Males being juvenile and not giving a damn about women feeling uncomfortable around them is sadly not particularly novel.
Quote from: celedhring on April 04, 2016, 09:19:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 09:12:24 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 04, 2016, 09:08:15 AM
Yeah, that's pretty extreme. There's plenty more gaming girls than when I started playing in the late 80s, though. It was a pretty closed male territory back then so I can picture why things like the ones Brazen relates could happen.
Maybe. But sitting around with my male friends describing graphic sex? How creepy and awkward would that be?
Lots, no doubt about that. But I can see it happening. Males being juvenile and not giving a damn about women feeling uncomfortable around them is sadly not particularly novel.
Yes. It is also not terrorism.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 09:16:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
But not every threat against a person is terroristic. If a robber threatens you with a gun so you would give him your money, it is not terrorism (even though by that article's definition it would fit the bill).
The intent here is obviously to generate fear and terror though. The Robber doesn't care about that, he or she just wants my money.
And with the intent of intimidating a sector of society to do or refrain from doing an act; in this case women (and in the examples also given also girls and people from ethnic minorities) to refrain from gaming.
Man who knew nerds were so horrible? I will now root for the jocks in all those 80s movies.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 08:01:03 AM
Here's the original blog entry in question which I posted on my FB wall: http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem
lol
Typical attention-whoring SJW tumblrina. But by all means tip your fedora, good sir.
Anyway, back to the topic after Solmyr derailed the thread - three Poles in the Panama Papers: one politician and two business people. None of them a criminal.
Also, getting hung up on what exactly is or is not terrorism is not really the point and simply distracts from the actual problem. A problem that is likely far more urgent for most Western women than Islamic or whatever kind of terrorism.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:26:33 AM
Also, getting hung up on what exactly is or is not terrorism is not really the point and simply distracts from the actual problem. A problem that is likely far more urgent for most Western women than Islamic or whatever kind of terrorism.
Really???? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:26:33 AM
Also, getting hung up on what exactly is or is not terrorism is not really the point and simply distracts from the actual problem. A problem that is likely far more urgent for most Western women than Islamic or whatever kind of terrorism.
Really???? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
What do you think women in the west suffer more from every year, Islamic terrorism or rapes and sexual harassment?
Not that you have any experience with women, of course.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:26:33 AM
Also, getting hung up on what exactly is or is not terrorism is not really the point and simply distracts from the actual problem. A problem that is likely far more urgent for most Western women than Islamic or whatever kind of terrorism.
Really???? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
What do you think women in the west suffer more from every year, Islamic terrorism or rapes and sexual harassment?
Not that you have any experience with women, of course.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fe.lvme.me%2Fbkyzhk1.jpg&hash=9d58a0ab05321f22fdf79e9bce514b74a487935e)
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:26:33 AM
Also, getting hung up on what exactly is or is not terrorism is not really the point and simply distracts from the actual problem. A problem that is likely far more urgent for most Western women than Islamic or whatever kind of terrorism.
Really???? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
What do you think women in the west suffer more from every year, Islamic terrorism or rapes and sexual harassment?
Not that you have any experience with women, of course.
You clearly have much more - but I thought you were talking about sexual harassment in tabletop games.
I'm talking about sexual harassment and misogyny in general, of which this is a part. However, I'll stop derailing this thread.
Surely noone is saying that there is no such thing as sexual harassment and rape in the West. In fact, I would say there is possibly the overlap between the perpetrators of such behaviours and perpetrators of Islamic terrorism. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:11:51 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 09:10:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
It's tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. Good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841)
I think Viper's point is that you may want to have an offshore account even if you have paid all the requisite taxes. For example, when you live in a country that does not respect private property.
Well, for the part of DNB's Norwegian customers, it was all for tax avoidance purposes. And illegal.
Well, I guess Norwegian justice system can fire all the police and the judges, because Norgy is able to decide whether something is illegal or not just on the basis of a sketchy press article. Yay.
That's both unfair and a not very subtle dig.
Not reporting assets is, by Norwegian tax law, illegal. And none of the assets DNB handled were ever reported. Ever.
But feel free to gloat. Your profession is what helps these people. So while you may rant and rave about inequality in other matters, you're actually part of the very problem.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:45:02 AM
Surely noone is saying that there is no such thing as sexual harassment and rape in the West. In fact, I would say there is possibly the overlap between the perpetrators of such behaviours and perpetrators of Islamic terrorism. :P
Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by straight Western men? Wow, I guess you are a feminist after all. :P
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:45:02 AM
Surely noone is saying that there is no such thing as sexual harassment and rape in the West. In fact, I would say there is possibly the overlap between the perpetrators of such behaviours and perpetrators of Islamic terrorism. :P
Islamic terrorism is perpetrated by straight Western men?
Well, a sub-set of them, yes. Or are you saying that a citizen of, say, Brussels or Sweden can never be considered a Western man unless he is of the "right" religion or race? That's pretty racist.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 04:03:32 AM
So yeah, having read the article, it seems the biggest scandal is that Sueddeutsche Zeitung journalists bought or otherwise acquired stolen data in violation of law and they are now trying to present themselves as heroes rather than thieves.
Not sure if it is a scandal, but to me at least it sounds like an interesting view into a world that might be familiar to you as a high-powered M&A lawyer, but is fairly obscure to me and I guess most people. Whether or not the presented facts constitute illegal activity or not is something I would leave to the respective law enforcement agencies. At least in Germany there were already some indictments based on the data.
But even if it isn't illegal, it's interesting to see to what length the rich and famous go to keep their money or other interests off-shore.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 09:30:05 AM
What do you think women in the west suffer more from every year, Islamic terrorism or rapes and sexual harassment?
And last I checked sexual harassment and rape are crimes and, rightly, men are profiled and suspected of being more likely to commit them. There are men in prison right now for having committed these crimes. What is your point here :hmm:
Though since Legbiter and Marty are lined up against you, it is probably a point worth listening to :P
Marty is having a real off-day.
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 12:45:15 PM
Marty is having a real off-day.
You mean as in "being awesome"?
If you starred in "How I Met Your Mother" and was Barney. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 08:37:55 AM
I hate to take Marty's defense here (believe me, I do!), but having an offshore account is not the same as not reporting your taxable income. These documents tell us who has an offshore account in Panama, not the reasons they have one. And there is also the (admitedly, very small) possibility some of them did declare such account to the proper fiscal authorities of their country.
It's tax avoidance vs. tax evasion. Good explanation here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841)
I think Viper's point is that you may want to have an offshore account even if you have paid all the requisite taxes. For example, when you live in a country that does not respect private property.
Yes. Or simply if you were a rich (at least multi-millionaire) person often travelling all over the world, having a banking account that will be easily accessible everywhere and no subject to the whims of a local governement that you haven't paid enough bribes to. Quebec engineers had their paycheck deposited in a Swiss bank in the early 90s when they were working in African/Middle-eastern countries because it was considered safer. Of course, we now know it wasn't always for that :D
But still, there was a really legitimate and legal reason to such an account for some people. I'm not naive enough to think the vast majority of people having such an account are honest people who paid all their taxes, but we should not automatically assume they are crooks because of this simple fact.
it's not going to matter one bit. the rich will still be able to what they do and the small fry will still be forced to turn over far too much of their earnings to incompetent states.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 04, 2016, 01:57:02 PM
it's not going to matter one bit. the rich will still be able to what they do and the small fry will still be forced to turn over far too much of their earnings to incompetent states.
If you go after the rich they can just leave. The rest of us are generally stuck where they live so from a rational policy standpoint we are the most reliable tax revenue source :ph34r:
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 09:03:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 08:59:51 AM
Wow. How did you come to game with people like that? That is waaaay outside what is expected in a tabletop session.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
The early 80s was culturally and societally far more removed from the present than we remember.
Sometimes, I like to think things have really changed. That most gamers are mature individuals. Then I read Bioware's forum asking for nude paid for DLCs, starting threads about the fact there are girls playing Mass Effect and all sort of sillyness like that.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 09:03:03 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 08:59:51 AM
Wow. How did you come to game with people like that? That is waaaay outside what is expected in a tabletop session.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
The early 80s was culturally and societally far more removed from the present than we remember.
Sometimes, I like to think things have really changed. That most gamers are mature individuals. Then I read Bioware's forum asking for nude paid for DLCs, starting threads about the fact there are girls playing Mass Effect and all sort of sillyness like that.
I think most normal people left Bioware's forums long ago. You will never find a greater hive of scum and villainy. Or not and most gamers are total scum. I mean some of the most prominent streamers and youtubers of Bioware games are women, you would have to live under a rock on Mars to not know they have a very passionate and vocal female fanbase so color me skeptical this is not a troll.
Quote from: Brazen on April 04, 2016, 07:00:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:18:48 AM
My definition of centre right includes basing your attitudes on fact and logic, not emotion. An emotional article from some feminist about facing "rampant mysogyny" and "death threats and rape threats" in a roleplaying Call of Cthulhu community sounds incredible at best and fabricated at worst (and likely to be the latter if the Rolling Stone "rape scandal" and gamergate taught us anything) so sharing that on Facebook with an apocalyptic commentary makes you look unhinged, especially combined with your ethusiastic attitudes about Islam.
I'm disappointed in you Marti. I haven't read the original source, but you must have seen evidence that any woman who has a strong opinion on any online channel is at risk of misogyny at best, and rape and death threats at worst. It's a real, frightening and all-too-frequent occurrence. You choosing not to believing this, plus using feminist and emotional as derogatory terms, makes me sad.
Yours truly,
Emotional Feminist
I don't have anything to say really, but i like to support Marty in all his endeavors. Specially against evil feminazis.
Yours truly,
Evil emotional machist
Machist? Hey I learned a new word today.
Dude, he travels in time and space, let's not annoy him.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 04, 2016, 01:57:02 PM
it's not going to matter one bit. the rich will still be able to what they do and the small fry will still be forced to turn over far too much of their earnings to incompetent states.
If you go after the rich they can just leave.
they are far more mobile than us, true. That is why there is a certain need for an occidental cooperation in this matter. British, American and Europeans would need to get rid of the special status of some of their territories, or at least agree to waive banking secret for a restricted group of countries upon demand.
Rich people are not going to massively move to Russia because it's a free country. Heck, if Trumps wants to live there and play bridge with Depardieux every saturday night, by all means, let them do it. The rich can freely move betwen US, Canada, Europe, but I don't see them renouncing the relative comfort, freedom and security that cities like Toronto, New York, Paris or London have to offer. Moving from Paris to Bruxelles, no problem. Moving from New York to London, ok. Moving from LA to Ryad? Not a chance.
As much as these people like to travel the world, they need to be close to their businesses and/or interest centers. Only occidental countries can offer them that.
Quote from: Norgy on April 04, 2016, 10:16:13 AM
That's both unfair and a not very subtle dig.
Not reporting assets is, by Norwegian tax law, illegal. And none of the assets DNB handled were ever reported. Ever.
But feel free to gloat. Your profession is what helps these people. So while you may rant and rave about inequality in other matters, you're actually part of the very problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 02:22:06 PM
Machist? Hey I learned a new word today.
His Sephardi roots are showing there.
I find myself agreeing with Siegy a lot lately. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 03:01:11 PM
I find myself agreeing with Siegy a lot lately. :hmm:
Should tell you something, surely. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:10:55 AM
Looks like even your other friends agree with me. :lol:
I was your facebook friend, once. :(
blog defines terrorist as
Quotean act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" and with the intention of intimidating the public "...with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."
disagree re: terrorist gamers. most gamers aren't doing it with the intent to cause fear, etc. the rape was rape, not an attempt to prevent women from playing by employing extreme methods. "if it bleeds, it breeds" was a dumb joke at someone's expense.
as well, what public is intimidated? her examples are single, isolated instances of aggression toward a single person. might as well say conservative areas are/were terrorists toward gays. agree with marti that while the things that happened to the author were horrible, this isn't terrorism. it hurts her cause to even call it terrorism; she should know better that people will disregard her point because of her extreme language
Quote from: LaCroix on April 04, 2016, 09:39:23 PM
blog defines terrorist as
Quotean act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" and with the intention of intimidating the public "...with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."
disagree re: terrorist gamers. most gamers aren't doing it with the intent to cause fear, etc. the rape was rape, not an attempt to prevent women from playing by employing extreme methods. "if it bleeds, it breeds" was a dumb joke at someone's expense.
as well, what public is intimidated? her examples are single, isolated instances of aggression toward a single person. might as well say conservative areas are/were terrorists toward gays. agree with marti that while the things that happened to the author were horrible, this isn't terrorism. it hurts her cause to even call it terrorism; she should know better that people will disregard her point because of her extreme language
Yeah, I have been thinking a bit about the article and why I find it so objectionable and I think my biggest problem is that it throws around so many different things but treats them the same to support a thesis. It uses examples of things like online death threats, sexual assault, distasteful jokes and people just being stupid but harmless and paints them all with the same broad brush which it calls "white male terrorism". It muddles the waters and makes it impossible to challenge the points in the article (because if you just say the whole thing seems to be incoherent, emotional and blown out of proportion, you get dubbed a mysogyne who doesn't think rape or death threats are important) - now I have taken a liberty of viewing that person's blog and she seems overall quite disturbed (which, again, doesn't make her account of her personal experiences a lie - but should require the reader to be at least a bit skeptical about at least details if not the whole gist of it) - I just thought that Languish posters are supposed to be more intellectually rigorous than that.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2016, 04:41:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:10:55 AM
Looks like even your other friends agree with me. :lol:
I was your facebook friend, once. :(
Like I need you to do the same stuff with my old Facebook posts as you do with my old Languish posts.
So this happened:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/04/rapper-azealia-banks-calls-sarah-palin-gang-raped-black-men/
OK? Are we supposed to be shocked by something that crazy Azealia says?
The funniest part is the fact that she reacted to a joke news site and thought it was real. I love when that happens.
I don't know the woman, but she seems a bit off the rocker.
Rapper more known for her crazy behavior online than her music (though she did have a very popular track like 5 years back).
She is the one who called Perez Hilton faggot repeatedly back in the day, right?
I just thought it substantiated the claim from the article posted by Solmyr that strong but controversial women do apparently face death and rape threats online. A bit surprised garbon dismisses it so lightly.
I'm not surprised that you would trot out a known crazy person just to weakly make your case. But hey by all means, if you want to care about Azealia Banks has to say, go on with your bad self.
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2016, 03:44:01 AM
I'm not surprised that you would trot out a known crazy person just to weakly make your case. But hey by all means, if you want to care about Azealia Banks has to say, go on with your bad self.
I am confused - yesterday I was schooled by Solmyr, who insisted we should not make light of online threats against women made by anonymous Internet posters. Today, you are telling me I am unreasonable for paying any attention to online threats against a woman made by a celebrity.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 04, 2016, 09:39:23 PM
people will disregard her point because of her extreme language
They will disregard her point even if she used non-extreme language, so it's not really a good excuse.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 05:31:24 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on April 04, 2016, 09:39:23 PM
people will disregard her point because of her extreme language
They will disregard her point even if she used non-extreme language, so it's not really a good excuse.
Are we still talking about Azealia Banks?
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 03:42:19 AM
She is the one who called Perez Hilton faggot repeatedly back in the day, right?
I just thought it substantiated the claim from the article posted by Solmyr that strong but controversial women do apparently face death and rape threats online. A bit surprised garbon dismisses it so lightly.
I know but then you've never been very bright. :console:
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 03:42:19 AM
She is the one who called Perez Hilton faggot repeatedly back in the day, right?
I just thought it substantiated the claim from the article posted by Solmyr that strong but controversial women do apparently face death and rape threats online. A bit surprised garbon dismisses it so lightly.
Not just strong, controversial women. Mary Beard the classical historian and Caroline Criado-Perez who campaigned to have Jane Austen on banknotes received particularly vile rape and death threats on social media. As have female MPs, non-classically beautiful or overweight celebrities, thin and beautiful celebrities, a girl who dated Harry Styles etc. All punished for the crime of being female and in the public eye.
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 06:04:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 03:42:19 AM
She is the one who called Perez Hilton faggot repeatedly back in the day, right?
I just thought it substantiated the claim from the article posted by Solmyr that strong but controversial women do apparently face death and rape threats online. A bit surprised garbon dismisses it so lightly.
Not just strong, controversial women. Mary Beard the classical historian and Caroline Criado-Perez who campaigned to have Jane Austen on banknotes received particularly vile rape and death threats on social media. As have female MPs, non-classically beautiful or overweight celebrities, thin and beautiful celebrities, a girl who dated Harry Styles etc. All punished for the crime of being female and in the public eye.
They were probably blowing it out of proportion and using extreme language, so it's not a problem according to Marti.
lol
People are mean on social media? Mount up Sir Lancelot.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 06:57:11 AM
They were probably blowing it out of proportion and using extreme language, so it's not a problem according to Marti.
Well Marti is being Trollus Maximus of late.
If you wouldn't say something to an individual's face in front of their, and your, mother, don't hide behind a keyboard.
So, apparently Emma Watson is the most recent one to have been disowned and cast into the wilderness for starring in L'Oreal's skin lightening cream ad.
http://www.gal-dem.com/perfect-whiteness-the-code-switching-of-european-cosmetic-companies/
:lol:
Online harrassment/hurting feelz is not a very gendered social ill. Except maybe among the professional victims.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html)
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
...The only category in which women got more Twitter abuse than men was journalism: abusive messages accounted for more than 5 percent of the tweets sent to the female journalists and TV presenters in the study and fewer than 2 percent of the ones sent to the male journalists. (However, the most abused male journalist in the sample, controversial ex-CNN host Piers Morgan, was counted as a "celebrity" rather than a journalist; otherwise, he would have single-handedly raised the proportion of abusive tweets to male journalists to almost 6 percent of the total.) While about three-quarters of the offenders were men, about 40 percent of the abusive tweets to women were sent by other women.
...A survey of Internet users conducted by the Pew Research Center last year found that 13 percent of female respondents and 11 percent of male respondents said they had been harassed or stalked online. (While Hess's Pacific Standard article drew on that survey to note that "5 percent of women who used the Internet said 'something happened online' that led them into 'physical danger,'" it made no mention of the fact that 3 percent of the men also reported such an experience.)
Women and men also had very similar concerns about Internet privacy and security; while more women than men (77 vs. 61 percent) had changed their privacy settings to restrict some people from seeing their activities, women were only marginally more likely to have blocked or unfriended someone in the social media or to have asked someone to remove online information posted about them.
And so on.
Stop posting hate-facts. :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 08:03:03 AM
So, apparently Emma Watson is the most recent one to have been disowned and cast into the wilderness for starring in L'Oreal's skin lightening cream ad.
http://www.gal-dem.com/perfect-whiteness-the-code-switching-of-european-cosmetic-companies/
:lol:
And it's mostly women tying her to the stake for crimes against socjus.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
Have you and CdM been PMing each other again?
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
No that's inaccurate.
QuoteOne blogpost (civilly) critical of Sarkeesian and her supporters offers a fully sourced compilation of online comments wishing death, rape, mutilation and deadly diseases upon Jack Thompson, an activist critical of violent and sexual content in videogames—as well as death threats directed at male videogame developers who ran afoul of their fans. Meanwhile, role-playing game designer James Desborough claims to have been viciously threatened for defending the use of sexual violence as a plot element in games. And film blogger Alex Sandell (Juicy Cerebellum) has described receiving not only a deluge of hate mail but threatening phone calls—sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes made to his relatives—after writing negative reviews of the first two Lord of the Rings movies.
...In the political sphere, several conservative male writers and activists have been targeted for rape and death threats, with their phone numbers publicly posted, after producing a documentary critical of the Occupy movement.
..One male victim of cyberstalking, British expatriate novelist James Lasdun, told his story in the 2013 memoir, Give Me Everything You Have: On Being Stalked. Lasdun's stalker, a former creative-writing student whose romantic overtures he had rejected, not only barraged him with abusive messages but emailed his colleagues accusing him of stealing her work, preying on female students, and even setting her up to be raped; she posted similar slanders on websites including Amazon.com and Wikipedia. But an experience like Lasdun's gets no political sympathy; indeed, the review in The New Yorker chided him for failing to admit his "crush" on the woman and his role in leading her on.
You could do a lot of pearl clutching in a similar vein about another victim of horrifying cyberbullying, Donald Trump. :lol:
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
Yes but I think the mechanism at work here is misinterpreted. I think the underlying goal of the person making a threat is to "get at the person" he or she is threatening - hence the threat is tailored to the victim's perceived vulnerability or trigger. So someone wishing to threaten or insult a gay person will talk about the target dying of AIDS or being tied to a fencepost, a Jewish person is attacked with some sort of a Holocaust reference, and a black person will be called the n-word or threatened with lynching.
This is not to say that the threat is necessarily always motivated by sexuality, race or gender but rather by the harasser trying to be as mean and hurtful as possible. (I mean, I had the "tied to a fence" insult thrown at me here on Languish by people who I know are not homophobic, for example). But by misinterpreting this phenomenon, many activists then go on talking about rampant online racism, homophobia or mysogyny - whereas the cause is simply rampant online equal opportunity assholishness.
In fact, to further develop on this trend of misinterpretation, white straight men are figuratively fucked in such reports and the abuse directed at them goes under the radar - because the perceived most popular method of getting under the skin of a straight male is to imply he is a cocksucker - which will get misreported as "homophobic abuse". ;)
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 06:04:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 03:42:19 AM
She is the one who called Perez Hilton faggot repeatedly back in the day, right?
I just thought it substantiated the claim from the article posted by Solmyr that strong but controversial women do apparently face death and rape threats online. A bit surprised garbon dismisses it so lightly.
Not just strong, controversial women. Mary Beard the classical historian and Caroline Criado-Perez who campaigned to have Jane Austen on banknotes received particularly vile rape and death threats on social media. As have female MPs, non-classically beautiful or overweight celebrities, thin and beautiful celebrities, a girl who dated Harry Styles etc. All punished for the crime of being female and in the public eye.
Oh yeah it is all about the LOLZ and the trolling. The people who make these threats are doing a wonderful job eroding away free speech online. The sociopaths ruin it for everybody.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 08:42:47 AM
In fact, to further develop on this trend of misinterpretation, white straight men are figuratively fucked in such reports and the abuse directed at them goes under the radar - because the perceived most popular method of getting under the skin of a straight male is to imply he is a cocksucker - which will get misreported as "homophobic abuse". ;)
Well today they accuse you of being a cuckold and wearing a fedora.
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
And white women are not called racial slurs and threatened with lynching. Online nutcases go for whatever they think will get the most rise out of people.
The problem is not the threats. It is the actions they do. Doxing and SWATing and so forth. They can get your fired from your job and evicted from your home using online methods or just making a phone call. The threats are just the beginning.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:26:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 08:42:47 AM
In fact, to further develop on this trend of misinterpretation, white straight men are figuratively fucked in such reports and the abuse directed at them goes under the radar - because the perceived most popular method of getting under the skin of a straight male is to imply he is a cocksucker - which will get misreported as "homophobic abuse". ;)
Well today they accuse you of being a cuckold and wearing a fedora.
That last slur really bites. :(
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:29:27 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
And white women are not called racial slurs and threatened with lynching. Online nutcases go for whatever they think will get the most rise out of people.
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Which is why I believe our anonymity is going to be a thing of the past soon. Which would be sad as I would never post here if it could be tracked back to my real name. It is not that I am saying super controversial things but I wouldn't like it if somebody could search my name and discover my views on abortion or the fact I support Clinton.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Which is why I believe our anonymity is going to be a thing of the past soon. Which would be sad as I would never post here if it could be tracked back to my real name. It is not that I am saying super controversial things but I wouldn't like it if somebody could search my name and discover my views on abortion or the fact I support Clinton.
At least half the forum knows my real name, and the other half could easily discover it. :unsure: :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Which is why I believe our anonymity is going to be a thing of the past soon. Which would be sad as I would never post here if it could be tracked back to my real name. It is not that I am saying super controversial things but I wouldn't like it if somebody could search my name and discover my views on abortion or the fact I support Clinton.
At least half the forum knows my real name, and the other half could easily discover it. :unsure: :hmm:
True. But it wouldn't just pop up if somebody did a quick search for you. Somebody would actually have to know a bit about you to figure it out.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 03, 2016, 03:55:57 PM
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: Liep on April 03, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
I suspect the Icelandic PM will have a busy week.
Or maybe not, seems he resigned.
He did? I thought he just walked out of the Guardian's interview.
Yes, yes he did. I was just a little early. :P
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/iceland-prime-minister-resigns-over-panama-papers-revelations
Meanwhile, in Russia nobody is a) surprised, b) bothered, or c) expecting anything to change.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 11:06:12 AM
Meanwhile, in Russia nobody is a) surprised, b) bothered, or c) expecting anything to change.
It's all just western propaganda made to make leaders that defy the UN look bad. Iceland's PM, Messi and Jackie Chang was just thrown in there to make it look real.
Quote from: Liep on April 05, 2016, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 11:06:12 AM
Meanwhile, in Russia nobody is a) surprised, b) bothered, or c) expecting anything to change.
It's all just western propaganda made to make leaders that defy the UN look bad. Iceland's PM, Messi and Jackie Chang was just thrown in there to make it look real.
Putinophobia is a word now.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 11:06:12 AM
Meanwhile, in Russia nobody is a) surprised, b) bothered, or c) expecting anything to change.
While the censors in China are so hard at work, they have probably already erased every hint of existence about that fairy tale place called "Panama".
Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 11:15:31 AM
Putinophobia is a word now.
If I lived in or by Russia I would have this. But is it really irrational? :ph34r:
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:29:27 AM
Quote from: Brazen on April 05, 2016, 08:25:32 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 05, 2016, 08:15:45 AM
QuoteThe difference in abuse between the sexes online isn't in the amount but the type. Data shows men get more hate, while women say they get it because they're women.
Yes, men may be threatened with stabbing but are less likely to be threatened with having their throat cut then fucked in the wound until they drown in cum. For example.
And white women are not called racial slurs and threatened with lynching. Online nutcases go for whatever they think will get the most rise out of people.
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Yeah this is my point - it is not about prejudice as such but about pushing the right buttons. Notice that nowhere I am excusing these assholes - but I am disputing a frequent claim that this is an evidence of wide spread racism/homophobia/mysogyny etc.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Which is why I believe our anonymity is going to be a thing of the past soon. Which would be sad as I would never post here if it could be tracked back to my real name. It is not that I am saying super controversial things but I wouldn't like it if somebody could search my name and discover my views on abortion or the fact I support Clinton.
Given what kind of shit people post on Facebook under their real names I doubt it will help much.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:33:05 AM
Given what kind of shit people post on Facebook under their real names I doubt it will help much.
Yeah and I am not one of them :P
I say 'Happy Birthday' and 'Wow your kid is cute' on Facebook.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:33:05 AM
Given what kind of shit people post on Facebook under their real names I doubt it will help much.
Yeah and I am not one of them :P
I say 'Happy Birthday' and 'Wow your kid is cute' on Facebook.
Your stance is pretty bizarre, though. Sure, I can tell that I wouldn't post some of the stuff I post here on Facebook (at least not without privacy restrictions) but I don't really have a problem with making it known to people who I am voting for and what my stance on abortion is. And I come from a country that was an authoritarian dictatorship within my lifetime, unlike you.
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:40:42 AM
Your stance is pretty bizarre, though. Sure, I can tell that I wouldn't post some of the stuff I post here on Facebook (at least not without privacy restrictions) but I don't really have a problem with making it known to people who I am voting for and what my stance on abortion is. And I come from a country that was an authoritarian dictatorship within my lifetime, unlike you.
Everybody feels that way until one of the things they said gets attention from the mob.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 11:44:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:40:42 AM
Your stance is pretty bizarre, though. Sure, I can tell that I wouldn't post some of the stuff I post here on Facebook (at least not without privacy restrictions) but I don't really have a problem with making it known to people who I am voting for and what my stance on abortion is. And I come from a country that was an authoritarian dictatorship within my lifetime, unlike you.
Everybody feels that way until one of the things they said gets attention from the mob.
Fortunately, there has been a significant backlash against the online mob mentality lately and I think that epidemic is weakened. Despite efforts of the likes of Solmyr, garbon and other cuckolds in fedoras. :P
I don't post much controversial on Facebook but lately I've been going after Berniebots really hard.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Which is why I believe our anonymity is going to be a thing of the past soon. Which would be sad as I would never post here if it could be tracked back to my real name. It is not that I am saying super controversial things but I wouldn't like it if somebody could search my name and discover my views on abortion or the fact I support Clinton.
One of the reasons I never donate money to political causes or campaigns. Some future would-be employer might see that and decide I'd be a bad fit or something. I can see the value in full disclosure, but there is definitely a drawback too.
So, new elections in Iceland now that the PM has resigned. Pirate party has been leading the polls for two years.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2016, 05:06:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 05, 2016, 10:33:28 AM
Modern sensitivities to abuse do have a certain self-perpetuating quality - as long as the asshole trolls know what berserk buttons to push to get their victims to totally freak out, they will keep pushing them - as long as they are protected by cowardly anonymity.
Which is why I believe our anonymity is going to be a thing of the past soon. Which would be sad as I would never post here if it could be tracked back to my real name. It is not that I am saying super controversial things but I wouldn't like it if somebody could search my name and discover my views on abortion or the fact I support Clinton.
One of the reasons I never donate money to political causes or campaigns. Some future would-be employer might see that and decide I'd be a bad fit or something. I can see the value in full disclosure, but there is definitely a drawback too.
Once again, this is a truly bizarre line of reasoning. Why would you want to work for someone who would hate you if he knew who you are? I mean I don't know what you do for your living exactly, but I assume you can find at least several employers who are looking for people like you. Surely, not all of them would dislike your political leanings.
It must be a really sorry state of being to live in such crippling fear.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 12:21:51 AM
Once again, this is a truly bizarre line of reasoning. Why would you want to work for someone who would hate you if he knew who you are? I mean I don't know what you do for your living exactly, but I assume you can find at least several employers who are looking for people like you. Surely, not all of them would dislike your political leanings.
It must be a really sorry state of being to live in such crippling fear.
It is not that simple Marty. My views also evolve. I would prefer they not be etched forever in digital stone attached to my name.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2016, 12:57:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 12:21:51 AM
Once again, this is a truly bizarre line of reasoning. Why would you want to work for someone who would hate you if he knew who you are? I mean I don't know what you do for your living exactly, but I assume you can find at least several employers who are looking for people like you. Surely, not all of them would dislike your political leanings.
It must be a really sorry state of being to live in such crippling fear.
It is not that simple Marty. My views also evolve. I would prefer they not be etched forever in digital stone attached to my name.
But it is getting more and more unavoidable - soon you will be like those weirdos in Oregon who refuse to get a driver's license or a social security number because this makes it easier for black helicopters to track them down.
At the same time (and this is something I predicted few years ago already), the backlash against using online information against people is already happening. Consumers are rebelling against media engaging in online witch-hunts, and companies are also realising that, as people become more and more de-sensitivised (?) to stuff other people post on Facebook (and at the same time we are getting to a point where only Mormons and weirdos do not have some sort of embarrassing online past), refusing to hire people because of what they had posted online simply cuts them off from a valuable human resource.
In other words, we are approaching a critical mass where what you post online will not matter again.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
So, new elections in Iceland now that the PM has resigned. Pirate party has been leading the polls for two years.
Panama, ahoy?
Shouldn't the Icelandic chapter of the Pirate Party be the Viking Party? Or do European nations only come up with cool names for their local offshoots of international political organisations when it comes to Waffen SS? :cry:
I do not post political stuff on Facebook, but that's more due to me wanting to choose when and where I engage in political debates (and Facebook is just not that place) than fear of it being used against me.
I am moderately political on Facebook but I control my privacy settings. But then, unlike most people I know, I use Facebook mainly to keep in touch with people I don't see or talk to on a daily basis (say, certain Languishites, as opposed to coworkers and such). My primary use of Facebook in any case is to post pictures of my cat and to subscribe to websites I am interested in.
I don't put anything personal on facebook, the only things I post are travel pictures (no people) and the odd article (no politics or social issues).
I do use FB to keep in touch with people, but mainly through private messages.
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 02:44:51 AM
I don't put anything personal on facebook, the only things I post are travel pictures (no people) and the odd article (no politics or social issues).
I do use FB to keep in touch with people, but mainly through private messages.
Yeah but then most of us do not live under a totalitarian dictatorship.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 02:49:01 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 02:44:51 AM
I don't put anything personal on facebook, the only things I post are travel pictures (no people) and the odd article (no politics or social issues).
I do use FB to keep in touch with people, but mainly through private messages.
Yeah but then most of us do not live under a totalitarian dictatorship.
True that, sorry. Perhaps when Poland is partitioned again things will get better for you?
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 02:29:13 AM
I am moderately political on Facebook but I control my privacy settings. But then, unlike most people I know, I use Facebook mainly to keep in touch with people I don't see or talk to on a daily basis (say, certain Languishites, as opposed to coworkers and such). My primary use of Facebook in any case is to post pictures of my cat and to subscribe to websites I am interested in.
Same here, use it to keep up with people I don't meet often, or haven't seen in the flesh in years.
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 02:53:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 02:49:01 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 02:44:51 AM
I don't put anything personal on facebook, the only things I post are travel pictures (no people) and the odd article (no politics or social issues).
I do use FB to keep in touch with people, but mainly through private messages.
Yeah but then most of us do not live under a totalitarian dictatorship.
True that, sorry. Perhaps when Poland is partitioned again things will get better for you?
Oh Jesus, sorry. I thought I was responding to Mono. :blush:
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 03:08:23 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 02:53:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 02:49:01 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 02:44:51 AM
I don't put anything personal on facebook, the only things I post are travel pictures (no people) and the odd article (no politics or social issues).
I do use FB to keep in touch with people, but mainly through private messages.
Yeah but then most of us do not live under a totalitarian dictatorship.
True that, sorry. Perhaps when Poland is partitioned again things will get better for you?
Oh Jesus, sorry. I thought I was responding to Mono. :blush:
:hug:
Second time I've been compared to Mono :ph34r:
http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/04/05/prime_minister_has_not_resigned_sends_press_release/
:lol:
Resignception.
Belgium is so small.
A newspaper made a map of Belgium which shows were the "Panama-Belgians" live. Highest number is Antwerp is 93. I suspect in the diamond quarter.
Since Brussels is spread out over 19 communes they off course don't score as high as Antwerp
2 of them live in my village.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 02:18:18 AM
But it is getting more and more unavoidable
Why? Last I checked I can still post anonymously all over the place :hmm:
Quotesoon you will be like those weirdos in Oregon who refuse to get a driver's license or a social security number because this makes it easier for black helicopters to track them down.
Why? I don't see all these screws tightening requiring me to jump on any slippery slopes.
QuoteAt the same time (and this is something I predicted few years ago already), the backlash against using online information against people is already happening. Consumers are rebelling against media engaging in online witch-hunts, and companies are also realising that, as people become more and more de-sensitivised (?) to stuff other people post on Facebook (and at the same time we are getting to a point where only Mormons and weirdos do not have some sort of embarrassing online past), refusing to hire people because of what they had posted online simply cuts them off from a valuable human resource.
In other words, we are approaching a critical mass where what you post online will not matter again.
Is there something in particular you just need me to post on facebook? Because I do not really agree with this.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
I say 'Happy Birthday' and 'Wow your kid is cute' on Facebook.
Fucking weirdo. :glare:
:P
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2016, 09:53:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 11:35:14 AM
I say 'Happy Birthday' and 'Wow your kid is cute' on Facebook.
Fucking weirdo. :glare:
:P
Happy birthday Viper! Your young relations sure are cute.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2016, 05:43:07 AM
Why? Last I checked I can still post anonymously all over the place :hmm:
Not really. You IP adress is known to Languish administrators and they can be compelled to reveal it. In the US, the threat is not so big. They would only do it if you commit a criminal act (say, posting juvenile porn), even under Trump that would not change much ;)
Now, if the forum is in Russia, and as a Russian citizen you criticize Putin, you may get into trouble. Make it Syria now, a few years ago, calling Assad a murderer could have seen your village razed to the ground.
Aside these extreme cases, there is the matter of marketing, for every place you visit, how long you stay there, etc. Languish has no ads, but in many sites they use ads with geolocalization, plus, if you don't delete them everyday, tracing cookies that track your online behavior to reveal it to marketers and other corporations. They may not know you are Valmy of Texas, but they will know your IP has visited a ski shopping site and spent a full 3 hours dreaming about the snowy mountains of Quebec, so they'll send you targetted advertisement for a trip to Quebec city during winter. And then, when you make such trip, they sell that info to other marketers wich builds another online profile to deliver even more targetted ads. Oh? See there! Every Sunday, he spends 2hrs at his local Wal-Mart in the electrical tools area. Let's send him ads for this.
next you write another post in your blog and you criticize Target for not offering sufficient product choices. Then they sell your name to porn companies that spam you at work ;)
Ok, too far fetched here :P
But you get the idea :)
Unless you use networks such as Tor or Freenet, is practically non existent. While they are formidable tools for people living in truly oppressive regime, the drawback is that it's filled with pedo porn, drug dealers, anarchists, conspirationists and killers for hire. The kind of people that also require anonymity.
Quote
In other words, we are approaching a critical mass where what you post online will not matter again.
Have to disagree on that. It will always matter to someone. Right now, some more traditional medias are having a field day about what some young political candidates may post on Facebook. Silly jokes teens are doing, like answering a silly quizz about the 3 things you bring on a desert island. "Oh! She said she'd bring a vibrator! She's unfit for political duty!".
Stuff like that, eventually, won't matter.
But your political opinions will. And expressing political opinions, unless they are extreme, should be a right in this society, not a priviledge. I don't hide my political toughts on FB, but I understand people who do.
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
Not really. You IP adress is known to Languish administrators and they can be compelled to reveal it. In the US, the threat is not so big. They would only do it if you commit a criminal act (say, posting juvenile porn), even under Trump that would not change much ;)
Well yeah. But that is different. I am talking about just casually cyber stalking me.
Quote from: Valmy on April 06, 2016, 10:56:01 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2016, 10:49:23 AM
Not really. You IP adress is known to Languish administrators and they can be compelled to reveal it. In the US, the threat is not so big. They would only do it if you commit a criminal act (say, posting juvenile porn), even under Trump that would not change much ;)
Well yeah. But that is different. I am talking about just casually cyber stalking me.
depends where you post, depends on your situation. Generally speaking, you're safe.
The EUFA office was raided over the Panama papers. FIFA's new president may be implicated :D
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 01:47:38 PM
The EUFA office was raided over the Panama papers. FIFA's new president may be implicated :D
These guys just can't get a break.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2016, 01:50:28 PM
Quote from: Maladict on April 06, 2016, 01:47:38 PM
The EUFA office was raided over the Panama papers. FIFA's new president may be implicated :D
These guys just can't get a break.
you'd think that after all these years of practice they'd be better at being corrupt.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfYkQ9TXEAAbjkO.jpg)
I am very happy to note that Hong Kong is more involved in the operations revealed in the Panama papers than Switzerland. There is hope afterall, because we are useful :cool:
An awful lot of the real estate purchases on the west coast come out of HK bank loans. Probably mostly collateralized in full in RMB.
What is this shit about fedoras? Accessory of choice to Indiana Jones and Bogey, that's pretty much unimpeachable.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2016, 12:46:26 AM
An awful lot of the real estate purchases on the west coast come out of HK bank loans. Probably mostly collateralized in full in RMB.
I have been offered the opportunity to buy these loans for an absurdly high 3% yield :ph34r:
Watch The Big Short before investing in them.
I insist that my bonds are denominated in US$ :ph34r:
You know there's something messed up about your economy when the citizens who have the cash in full to buy a property are willing to pay the full purchase price plus annual interest just to get a place outside the borders.
Edit: Oh, and then leave the place derelict even.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 04:51:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2016, 04:30:34 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
Someone should check if his name is on the list.
I am not rich enough. :(
Didn't you describe a rather shady arrangement by which you're minimizing your taxes?
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2016, 01:23:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 04:51:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 04, 2016, 04:30:34 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
Marti is going full Trump on us. :(
Someone should check if his name is on the list.
I am not rich enough. :(
Didn't you describe a rather shady arrangement by which you're minimizing your taxes?
Err, no. I am just doing what every lawyer in this country is doing, that is working as a self-employed professional rather than an employee, which allows me to pay a 19% flat income tax rate.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2016, 02:09:03 PM
Err, no. I am just doing what every lawyer in this country is doing, that is working as a self-employed professional rather than an employee, which allows me to pay a 19% flat income tax rate.
So you're being employed as a self-employed professional? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2016, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2016, 02:09:03 PM
Err, no. I am just doing what every lawyer in this country is doing, that is working as a self-employed professional rather than an employee, which allows me to pay a 19% flat income tax rate.
So you're being employed as a self-employed professional? :hmm:
Yes. Besides, the state spends the money on stupid stuff and doesn't even allow me to marry - so why should I share the product of my hard work with it. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2016, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2016, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2016, 02:09:03 PM
Err, no. I am just doing what every lawyer in this country is doing, that is working as a self-employed professional rather than an employee, which allows me to pay a 19% flat income tax rate.
So you're being employed as a self-employed professional? :hmm:
Yes. Besides, the state spends the money on stupid stuff and doesn't even allow me to marry - so why should I share the product of my hard work with it. :P
You don't see how this kind of chicanery may be viewed in the same light as the other stuff in Panama Papers: technically legal but highly dubious?
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2016, 02:30:42 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2016, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2016, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2016, 02:09:03 PM
Err, no. I am just doing what every lawyer in this country is doing, that is working as a self-employed professional rather than an employee, which allows me to pay a 19% flat income tax rate.
So you're being employed as a self-employed professional? :hmm:
Yes. Besides, the state spends the money on stupid stuff and doesn't even allow me to marry - so why should I share the product of my hard work with it. :P
You don't see how this kind of chicanery may be viewed in the same light as the other stuff in Panama Papers: technically legal but highly dubious?
1. Everybody is doing this.
2. I have already said I don't find anything wrong with Panama Papers. Haters gonna hate.
I wonder if Marty will have to go to jail.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2016, 03:20:27 PM
I wonder if Marty will have to go to jail.
About as likely as Hillary.
You mishandled classified documents.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 08, 2016, 04:26:31 PM
You mishandled classified documents.
Is this one of those roleplay scenarios?
Not one of those. :yucky:
:perv:
Van Halen's non-accounting expositions were ahead of their time. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 04:04:28 AM
Yeah but it is legal. So change the law if you don't like it. Complaining that businesses make use of legally available ways to optimise their operations is idiotic.
The ability to legally hide your money in laundering centers is what makes them laundering centers.
If it's legal it's not laundering. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 09, 2016, 05:01:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 04:04:28 AM
Yeah but it is legal. So change the law if you don't like it. Complaining that businesses make use of legally available ways to optimise their operations is idiotic.
The ability to legally hide your money in laundering centers is what makes them laundering centers.
I think you don't understand what the term "laundering" means. Laundering means taking money from illegal sources and using it in legal transactions in order to create presumption of legal origin for it. (So, for example, you have money from selling illegal drugs which you want to launder - so you transfer it to a legitimate business as a payment for a service that was not actually performed. Then you call the business telling them you sent them the money by mistake and they return it to you. Voila, the money has been laundered).
The practice described in the Panama Papers mainly concerns taking money from legal sources (such as income from capital) and then transferring it off shore, either for the purpose of beneficial tax treatment or to conceal them (from the public, the authorities, the relatives etc.). So, for example, you operate a business in Norway with god-knows-how-high taxes where using your own brand is an important compenent. So you set up an IP company in Malta, which does not tax income from use of IP rights, transfer the trademark rights to it and then have it charge royalty to your Norwegian business. This reduces the taxable income in Norway by the amount of the royalty (assuming it is on arms length's terms) and allows you not to pay income tax on the royalty in Malta, leading to tax optimalisation of your business. Such practice is not necessarily illegal and legality depends on jurisdiction and actual purpose of doing this. Money laundering is always illegal.
Just to be on the same page, I just wanted to make sure that you guys realise that tax avoidance is legal, right? And what differentiates it from tax evasion (which is illegal) can vary wildly from a jurisdiction to a jurisdiction.
Where I am with Marty is that this kind of stuff is done by everyone everywhere, the only difference is, everyone is doing it on their own scale. That BS business expense excuse you used to pay a few dollars less tax, having your car on your company's name etc.
The only valid reason for the level of outrage shown by the public is for public figures who have money they clearly could not have from legal means. Rest is just increasingly repulsive hypocrisy.
Not just that but everybody probably makes actual non-BS tax deductions on their tax return, whether it is because of social security they pay or being able to file a joint tax return with their non-working spouse etc. Companies and high value individual do the same, they just can hire (better) tax lawyers and get better returns. So saying something is "legal but dodgy" is extremely hypocritical - it's just a subjective moral judgement from the have-nots on the haves.
To paraphrase Milo, if you want to have access to better tax optimisation arrangements, stop being poor.
And yeah I agree with Tamas that the actual bad part about the Panama Papers is public figures who got the money from corruption and other illegal sources.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 01:52:10 AM
Not just that but everybody probably makes actual non-BS tax deductions on their tax return, whether it is because of social security they pay or being able to file a joint tax return with their non-working spouse etc. Companies and high value individual do the same, they just can hire (better) tax lawyers and get better returns. So saying something is "legal but dodgy" is extremely hypocritical - it's just a subjective moral judgement from the have-nots on the haves.
To paraphrase Milo, if you want to have access to better tax optimisation arrangements, stop being poor.
Does Milo define your entire spectrum of political views nowadays? I swear everything you believe in seems to be attached to "According to Milo".
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 12:38:52 AM
I think you don't understand what the term "laundering" means. Laundering means taking money from illegal sources and using it in legal transactions in order to create presumption of legal origin for it. (So, for example, you have money from selling illegal drugs which you want to launder - so you transfer it to a legitimate business as a payment for a service that was not actually performed. Then you call the business telling them you sent them the money by mistake and they return it to you. Voila, the money has been laundered).
The practice described in the Panama Papers mainly concerns taking money from legal sources (such as income from capital) and then transferring it off shore, either for the purpose of beneficial tax treatment or to conceal them (from the public, the authorities, the relatives etc.). So, for example, you operate a business in Norway with god-knows-how-high taxes where using your own brand is an important compenent. So you set up an IP company in Malta, which does not tax income from use of IP rights, transfer the trademark rights to it and then have it charge royalty to your Norwegian business. This reduces the taxable income in Norway by the amount of the royalty (assuming it is on arms length's terms) and allows you not to pay income tax on the royalty in Malta, leading to tax optimalisation of your business. Such practice is not necessarily illegal and legality depends on jurisdiction and actual purpose of doing this. Money laundering is always illegal.
I understand what laundering is and I understand that's not necessarily what we're talking about (although I strongly suspect laundering is going on as well), I just couldn't come up with a term to describe what Panama is.
You already conceded downstream that there is no guarantee the money parked in these accounts is legitimate income. The inclusion of Putin on the list of names means at least some of it is not.
But the problem is what you describe as the virtue: other people don't know it exists. Other parties, be they taxing authorities, divorced spouses, creditors, whatever, who have the legal right to know about and to take those assets can't.
Whether these other parties have a right to know these assets exist depends entirely on the jurisdiction.
As a moral rather than legal question, I generally believe that people have a right to privacy and it extends to their assets, in the same way people should be able to keep their correspondence private (and it should be legal for them to use encryption and other technical means of ensuring this privacy) - even though in some jurisdictions such techniques are prohibited.
These are corporations not people we are talking about. I don't think they have any particular right to privacy.
Quote from: frunk on April 11, 2016, 05:58:24 AM
These are corporations not people we are talking about. I don't think they have any particular right to privacy.
Uhm, no. The Panama Papers are largely about private individuals and their wholly owned company vehicles, not about corporations.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2016, 01:09:26 AM
Where I am with Marty is that this kind of stuff is done by everyone everywhere, the only difference is, everyone is doing it on their own scale. That BS business expense excuse you used to pay a few dollars less tax, having your car on your company's name etc.
:rolleyes: Speak for yourself. I've never done such a thing.
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2016, 09:07:21 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2016, 01:09:26 AM
Where I am with Marty is that this kind of stuff is done by everyone everywhere, the only difference is, everyone is doing it on their own scale. That BS business expense excuse you used to pay a few dollars less tax, having your car on your company's name etc.
:rolleyes: Speak for yourself. I've never done such a thing.
yeah, wtf.
How do you reconcile this supposed "right to asset privacy" with taxation?
Quote from: celedhring on April 11, 2016, 09:49:30 AM
How do you reconcile this supposed "right to asset privacy" with taxation?
You don't. Marty is just pulling "rights" out of his ass.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 03:11:53 AM
Whether these other parties have a right to know these assets exist depends entirely on the jurisdiction.
As a moral rather than legal question, I generally believe that people have a right to privacy and it extends to their assets, in the same way people should be able to keep their correspondence private (and it should be legal for them to use encryption and other technical means of ensuring this privacy) - even though in some jurisdictions such techniques are prohibited.
Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.
The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized. That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society. Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process. One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.
The second assumption is that because many of transactions in question were arguably legal nobody should be able to discover how the law is being used (and many would say abused). But if the public never learn about laws that should be more closely scrutinized how do you propose that any meaningful legislative reforms take place?
The third assumption you are making really underpins the first two assumptions. That is the assumption that these laws are fine so everyone should carry on and not make such a bother about it.
Your assumptions work well in a more dictatorial form of government where government officials working closely with other elites get to decide what is best without others really knowing what is occurring. But I am not convinced that such a model should be defended.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.
The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized. That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society. Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process. One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.
This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.
I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 11:40:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.
The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized. That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society. Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process. One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.
This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.
I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.
Yeah, the fact that you are missing the point is pretty clear from your response. If people are not aware of the problem, how are they supposed to lobby for the law to be changed?
That might not actually be the point.
Marty said morally it's questionable to violate the privacy of the people with accounts or companies or whatever it is. I don't know that doing that violation of privacy is necessary in order to point out the failures of the law.
I mean, they obviously decided to put their money there because the banking laws of their own jurisdiction failed to adequately protect their privacy, either due to the law itself or due to functional failure. Or at least that's one of the reasons. Outing them does not fix that problem.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 03:26:39 PM
That might not actually be the point.
Marty said morally it's questionable to violate the privacy of the people with accounts or companies or whatever it is. I don't know that doing that violation of privacy is necessary in order to point out the failures of the law.
I mean, they obviously decided to put their money there because the banking laws of their own jurisdiction failed to adequately protect their privacy, either due to the law itself or due to functional failure. Or at least that's one of the reasons. Outing them does not fix that problem.
They obviously decided to put their money there so they would not have to pay tax on that money. Privacy laws had nothing to do with it.
But for the sake of argument let's take that angle. Which is the moral choice? To allow a law to be used by an exclusive few without the knowledge of the many or to allow the many to know how the law is being used by the privileged few? The person who answers the former is relying on an assumption that the law and those using it should be protected even if that means that an unjust law continues to be unchallenged because the privacy of those privileged few outweighs the interest everyone to have good and just laws of general application.
As may be obvious, I don't accept that rationalization. It runs counter to all the legislative efforts across democracies to make policy decisions of government and politicians more transparent and accountable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 03:37:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 03:26:39 PM
That might not actually be the point.
Marty said morally it's questionable to violate the privacy of the people with accounts or companies or whatever it is. I don't know that doing that violation of privacy is necessary in order to point out the failures of the law.
I mean, they obviously decided to put their money there because the banking laws of their own jurisdiction failed to adequately protect their privacy, either due to the law itself or due to functional failure. Or at least that's one of the reasons. Outing them does not fix that problem.
They obviously decided to put their money there so they would not have to pay tax on that money.
Not all of them. Possibly the majority of them, but not all of them.
Say you have a business. It is 1998. You operate in Venezuela. 2 years later, the Venezuelan government decides that you are a thief and they expropriate your business, seize all your assets, financial and material.
If you have a company set up in an offshore account, you can keep most of your financial assets, you only lose what the government won't let you take out of the country.
Of course, having offshore accounts can be useful to bribe foreign leaders without leaving a trace. That is the disgusting part. But having the account for the first reason stated is not an automatic #2.
If, as an individual, you travel a lot abroad, in unsafe countries, it's very useful to keep money in such an account that can't be easily accessed by a government or criminal group. It can be a life saver in some places, if things turn sour.
And as strange as it sounds, for those operating in international finance, with transaction in multiple, generally safe countries, it will often be easier to transfer large funds to/from such an offshore account to/from a more traditional bank than from, say, Toronto Dominion to Crédit Lyonnais. Less hassles, less fees, once the initial setup is done.
Again, most of the people with such accounts do this to avoid taxes or hide corruption money. Most, but not all.
A I am on Marty's side on this, but I do not follow him on his zealous defense on the right of asset privacy from your government in all cases. If I was a russian businessman not aligned to Putin, I would have an offshore account or two. If I was a legitimate canadian businessman rich enough to have an offshore account, probably not. I'd prefer avoiding countries of ill-repute instead.
Putting assets in multiple jurisdictions is a simple and obvious risk management step.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 11:40:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.
The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized. That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society. Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process. One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.
This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.
I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.
How can you lobby about a problem that nobody is aware of because the current structure allows the mega wealthy to hide the problem completely?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 03:37:01 PMWhich is the moral choice? To allow a law to be used by an exclusive few without the knowledge of the many or to allow the many to know how the law is being used by the privileged few? The person who answers the former is relying on an assumption that the law and those using it should be protected even if that means that an unjust law continues to be unchallenged because the privacy of those privileged few outweighs the interest everyone to have good and just laws of general application.
Is it a big secret that you only get to know about if your net worth is high enough? Did someone actually pass a law saying that diversifying funds to other countries was only available to super rich people?
Which law are you talking about?
Yes, the privacy of the individual does outweigh just about any public good I can possibly imagine here. I can't even think of any reason that someone might need to publish the contents of your bank account in order to advocate for a change in a law of any kind.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 04:17:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 03:37:01 PMWhich is the moral choice? To allow a law to be used by an exclusive few without the knowledge of the many or to allow the many to know how the law is being used by the privileged few? The person who answers the former is relying on an assumption that the law and those using it should be protected even if that means that an unjust law continues to be unchallenged because the privacy of those privileged few outweighs the interest everyone to have good and just laws of general application.
Is it a big secret that you only get to know about if your net worth is high enough? Did someone actually pass a law saying that diversifying funds to other countries was only available to super rich people?
Which law are you talking about?
Yes, the privacy of the individual does outweigh just about any public good I can possibly imagine here. I can't even think of any reason that someone might need to publish the contents of your bank account in order to advocate for a change in a law of any kind.
In answer to your rhetorical question, I think the answer is yes. Who other then high net worth people would know about the arcane world of tax avoidance? That is what is so impactful about this disclosure. Although people knew that the rich had means to shelter their assets I don't think many understood the magnitude of the problem until now.
How many actually read Picketty's book and understood his call for tax reform?
The really funny thing is that Marti used to quote from him. :D
If you think that secrecy is the most important moral good then you and I will have to part company there. Even Switzerland is being forced to change to a more modern and I dare say moral approach.
Everyone "has access" to these methods. Just because I personally don't have enough assets that assuming the overhead of these kinds of diversification strategies would make sense doesn't mean "the law" is somehow discriminating against me.
I read P, and he never advocated outlawing overseas investing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 04:28:40 PM
Everyone "has access" to these methods. Just because I personally don't have enough assets that assuming the overhead of these kinds of diversification strategies would make sense doesn't mean "the law" is somehow discriminating against me.
The law prevents everyone from sleeping under a bridge.
That logic just doesn't work my friend. Only those with sufficient income will find it to be cost effective to retain the services of a specialist to take advantage of off shore tax devices to shelter their money. It is therefore only those people who benefit from tax avoidance laws while the rest of the 99% pay the full tax bill. It is illusory to suggest that is a law of general application.
Let us return to our discussion about morality. I think it is moral to have laws which provide special benefits to the least advantaged in our society. I think it is immoral to provide laws which provide special benefits to the most advantaged in our society and particularly when those advantages are, for all practical purposes, hidden from view.
QuoteI read P, and he never advocated outlawing overseas investing.
You should reread the parts where he expressly talks about removing laws which allow this sort of tax avoidance. He readily admitted that the level of international cooperation which would be necessary made it unlikely to achieve but he certainly expressed the view that international tax dodges were a significant part of the problem of wealth inequality in our society.
I can think of no moral justification for wanting to know the contents of your bank account. If I go to your bank and ask to see them, the bank will tell me no, because that's their fiduciary responsibility.
I don't know what the law has to do with morality, anyway. The two are often agnostic of each other and sometimes actively at odds.
Quote
You should reread the parts where he expressly talks about removing laws which allow this sort of tax avoidance. He readily admitted that the level of international cooperation which would be necessary made it unlikely to achieve but he certainly expressed the view that international tax dodges were a significant part of the problem of wealth inequality in our society.
I have it right here. You can give me a page number if you want.
"Tax dodges" is not a thing anyone should need. However even if you lived in a very friendly jurisdiction (however you define that), it would still be a dumb idea to keep all your assets in one country.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 04:52:19 PM
I can think of no moral justification for wanting to know the contents of your bank account. If I go to your bank and ask to see them, the bank will tell me no, because that's their fiduciary responsibility.
Nobody is talking about private individuals having a right to know what is in the bank account of other private individuals. Where did that idea get into the discussion?
QuoteHowever even if you lived in a very friendly jurisdiction (however you define that), it would still be a dumb idea to keep all your assets in one country.
You are mixing up at least two separate concepts. Nobody disputes that diversifying is a perfectly legitimate business desire.
But you don't need super secret shell companies to do that, and that is NOT the purpose of what is under discussion.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 04:52:19 PM
I can think of no moral justification for wanting to know the contents of your bank account. If I go to your bank and ask to see them, the bank will tell me no, because that's their fiduciary responsibility.
I don't know what the law has to do with morality, anyway. The two are often agnostic of each other and sometimes actively at odds.
Quote
You should reread the parts where he expressly talks about removing laws which allow this sort of tax avoidance. He readily admitted that the level of international cooperation which would be necessary made it unlikely to achieve but he certainly expressed the view that international tax dodges were a significant part of the problem of wealth inequality in our society.
I have it right here. You can give me a page number if you want.
"Tax dodges" is not a thing anyone should need. However even if you lived in a very friendly jurisdiction (however you define that), it would still be a dumb idea to keep all your assets in one country.
With all due respect, if you missed the call for an end to international tax avoidance, you kind of missed the whole point of his book that an effective progressive tax is the best policy device governments have to combat income inequality.
I didn't miss that, and I agree with it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 05:15:01 PM
I didn't miss that, and I agree with it.
ok, what are we disagreeing about?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 11, 2016, 09:59:25 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 11, 2016, 09:49:30 AM
How do you reconcile this supposed "right to asset privacy" with taxation?
You don't. Marty is just pulling "rights" out of his ass.
Well in his defense, he is a minion for these people.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 05:15:01 PM
I didn't miss that, and I agree with it.
ok, what are we disagreeing about?
I guess that the issue is about tax dodging. It's far more complicated than that.
Marty asked some questions of morality, but there's no moral component in taxes. You pay them because it's the law, not because there's a choice.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 05:45:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 05:17:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 05:15:01 PM
I didn't miss that, and I agree with it.
ok, what are we disagreeing about?
I guess that the issue is about tax dodging. It's far more complicated than that.
Marty asked some questions of morality, but there's no moral component in taxes. You pay them because it's the law, not because there's a choice.
Ok, that is a point of disagreement. :)
I think tax policy is a decision governments make that takes place in a moral context. The judgement that the law is neutral, as you argued above, is itself a moral judgment. Just as the counter argument that it is not neutral at all is based on a moral judgment.
If we get to the next level our our discussion, your assertion that privacy rights should trump the ability of taxation authorities to know what is occurring also involves a question of morality.
Picketty's argument that these sorts of tax loopholes should be closed so that wealth can be effectively taxed on a progressive basis is also grounded in morality.
The very notion that all people should be treated equal and that there should not be special circumstances for the elite is a deeply moral concept.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 06:38:20 PM
Picketty's argument that these sorts of tax loopholes should be closed so that wealth can be effectively taxed on a progressive basis is also grounded in morality.
That's a good point. And we can't go there if I can't get to thinking of the tax authorities as a moral agent.
I think they are a legal agent. Kind of like when a lawyer in court is representing a guilty defendant and he knows it. It's his job to act in his client's interest, and the law is set up that way to ensure there are adequate protections. Someone must perform that duty. What that lawyer is doing is not immoral. It's a function of legal activity that is necessary for the court to properly function. The taxes have to be collected. Some doofus might think it's more moral to not pay the taxes. It doesn't matter.
All those goals you mentioned are certainly morally good things. Maybe some of them aren't, for people with weird morality. :P
Some people like laws against sodomy and gay marriage because they think that's moral. The law doesn't care one way or the other. It enforces what's written.
This is why I think legality and morality are separate.
Also, now they're publishing a List(R) from the Panama Papers. Come on, man. The Good Guys don't make lists. Witch hunts make lists. Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy make lists. The whole thing is incredibly distasteful.
Nixon and McCarthy made lists that weren't true.
Exactly what principle or principles are you defending Mimsy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2016, 08:03:06 PM
Exactly what principle or principles are you defending Mimsy?
This is one of those times when my gut feeling is not to follow the mob, if you know what I mean.
It's not good and evil, it's something else that requires more thought.
I guess that's not really a good answer to your question, but if I come up with something more specific, I'll say.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2016, 07:24:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 06:38:20 PM
Picketty's argument that these sorts of tax loopholes should be closed so that wealth can be effectively taxed on a progressive basis is also grounded in morality.
That's a good point. And we can't go there if I can't get to thinking of the tax authorities as a moral agent.
I think they are a legal agent. Kind of like when a lawyer in court is representing a guilty defendant and he knows it. It's his job to act in his client's interest, and the law is set up that way to ensure there are adequate protections. Someone must perform that duty. What that lawyer is doing is not immoral. It's a function of legal activity that is necessary for the court to properly function. The taxes have to be collected. Some doofus might think it's more moral to not pay the taxes. It doesn't matter.
All those goals you mentioned are certainly morally good things. Maybe some of them aren't, for people with weird morality. :P
Some people like laws against sodomy and gay marriage because they think that's moral. The law doesn't care one way or the other. It enforces what's written.
This is why I think legality and morality are separate.
Also, now they're publishing a List(R) from the Panama Papers. Come on, man. The Good Guys don't make lists. Witch hunts make lists. Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy make lists. The whole thing is incredibly distasteful.
I think that is Marti's approach as a lawyer. But I think it is important to separate the positions one might take in that role with the position one takes when considering what the law ought to be. A good frank discussion about what the law should be is hindered if the population is not well informed as to what the law is. Sometimes it takes an event like this to start the discussion and cause much needed law reform.
The notion that the law doesn't care ignores that fact that laws dont make themselves. Legislators make laws. Laws don't think nor do they act. They are creatures of what we make of them.
You might find it distasteful, but what I find more distasteful are unfair tax laws. At least this exposes the current legal tax codes in the world for what they are. Tools for the rich to avoid paying tax while the shrinking middle class shoulders all the burden. It is a very important moment for creating effective and efficient tax policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2016, 08:03:06 PM
Nixon and McCarthy made lists that weren't true.
Exactly what principle or principles are you defending Mimsy?
I think Richard Nixon is a better judge of who Richard Nixon's enemies are than you or I. :sleep:
CC, wouldn't the moral argument you are making rest on an assumption that taxes are morally good?
There are plenty of people out there who are not criminals and who think that the state (especially in countries like Canada) is too bloated and grabs too much of private citizens' money. They lack the ability to change that because, to paraphrase Toqueville, the rabble has figured out how to use democracy to help itself to public money, and it is no longer possible to stop them from leeching off it. From such a perspective, using legal tax avoidance mechanisms is not just morally neutral - it is actually morally positive, because you are actually protecting the product of your hard work from the hands of the parasites.
I do not necessarily share this view, mind you, but you are making as many moral assumptions as anyone else here, but pretend to argue from the position of objective morality.
Quote from: viper37 on April 11, 2016, 04:00:10 PM
If you have a company set up in an offshore account, you can keep most of your financial assets, you only lose what the government won't let you take out of the country.
Viper touches on a good point. At least in the US, lots of multinationals have massive amounts of offshore cash because there are significant taxes on repatriation. A lot of that money ends up in places considered tax havens, even though it just ends up in government debt or CDs. Why? Because the same lax attitude that makes it a tax haven also make it easy to do legitimate things like move money in and out of the country and they also have lower taxes on passive income.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2016, 04:10:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 11:40:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.
The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized. That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society. Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process. One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.
This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.
I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.
How can you lobby about a problem that nobody is aware of because the current structure allows the mega wealthy to hide the problem completely?
The problem is you are violating all these people's privacy by revealing something about them that is possibly somewhat embarrassing (for example to their relatives, if they are hiding the money from them) but legal to make the public aware of a problem that, even if addressed, would probably concerns only a small number of these people.
This is not unlike a witch hunt. Or, say, the press revealing people's legal but embarrassing sexual preferences and fetishes to highlight some potentially related issue that may concern only a small number of them (say, you wanted to address sexual violence and revealed details of all people who engage in BDSM).
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2016, 12:04:23 AM
CC, wouldn't the moral argument you are making rest on an assumption that taxes are morally good?
There are plenty of people out there who are not criminals and who think that the state (especially in countries like Canada) is too bloated and grabs too much of private citizens' money. They lack the ability to change that because, to paraphrase Toqueville, the rabble has figured out how to use democracy to help itself to public money, and it is no longer possible to stop them from leeching off it. From such a perspective, using legal tax avoidance mechanisms is not just morally neutral - it is actually morally positive, because you are actually protecting the product of your hard work from the hands of the parasites.
I do not necessarily share this view, mind you, but you are making as many moral assumptions as anyone else here, but pretend to argue from the position of objective morality.
And I quite explicitly stated I was taking a position based on morality. I think you are missing the point again. The position you took assumes that the law is neutral. It most definitely is not. But morality aside, as a practical matter the current state of the law undermines the ability of the nation state to implement effective progressive tax systems. For all the reasons stated by Picketty that kind of system leads to extreme income inequality and as a result is inherently unstable.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2016, 01:20:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2016, 04:10:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 11:40:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2016, 10:19:06 AM
Your position that some of the transactions that were arguably legal should not be criticized has some questionable assumptions.
The first assumption is that a legal act should not be criticized. That is a rather odd position to take in a democratic society. Laws should be carefully considered and where appropriate changed through the democratic process. One way to do that is to make the general public aware of laws that should receive more scrutiny.
This is probably why I said in one of the first posts in this tread that if you don't like such actions being legal, lobby for law to be changed, rather than bitching about evil rich people trying to minimise their tax exposure through legal means.
I don't understand your point in the other two assumptions so will not respond.
How can you lobby about a problem that nobody is aware of because the current structure allows the mega wealthy to hide the problem completely?
The problem is you are violating all these people's privacy by revealing something about them that is possibly somewhat embarrassing (for example to their relatives, if they are hiding the money from them) but legal to make the public aware of a problem that, even if addressed, would probably concerns only a small number of these people.
This is not unlike a witch hunt. Or, say, the press revealing people's legal but embarrassing sexual preferences and fetishes to highlight some potentially related issue that may concern only a small number of them (say, you wanted to address sexual violence and revealed details of all people who engage in BDSM).
Except it isn't anything like that at all.
I am required to disclose my financial information to the government in order to allow them to assess my taxes.
Nobody is talking about anyone having the right to look at my tax returns - other than the IRS.
If I hide my income in some shell company so that the IRS can't see it, and what is more, the people who have a say in making laws about how taxes ought to be collected cannot even know it exists to be taxed, then of course that is a problem.
Now, the solution to this particular problem is likely to involve the public getting access to data they would not get normally, but that is a result of these people trying to hide their assets from legitimate review. Tough shit. I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 10:20:04 AM
I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.
You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 10:20:04 AM
I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.
You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.
Are taking the position that the wealthy should be given special treatment under the law?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2016, 10:41:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 10:20:04 AM
I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.
You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.
Are taking the position that the wealthy should be given special treatment under the law?
Of course! They are rich and can afford special treatment!
And lawyers make a lot of money providing said treatment!
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 10:20:04 AM
I have no sympathy for the mega wealthy or their lawyers.
You could have just posted that line - because it encapsulates your entire "philosophy" on the issue - and save us the rest of the rant.
Well, I guess posting that line allowed you to shut off your brain and just pretend that is all I posted, so there is that advantage. To you, anyway. You're welcome.
No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. :(
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
And sue? :P
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2016, 11:03:30 AM
No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. :(
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
And sue? :P
I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.
It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 06:02:05 AM
Uhm, no. The Panama Papers are largely about private individuals and their wholly owned company vehicles, not about corporations.
So companies have a right to privacy? I don't think so. I don't see why it would matter who owns the company, the company isn't a person and doesn't get rights.
Apart from business secrets
Quote from: Tamas on April 12, 2016, 02:35:53 PM
Apart from business secrets
That isnt a "right" in the sense being used here. Those are mainly reduced to contractual obligations and copyright/trademark law which has its own complexities. There is no blanket "right" to business secrets.
I'd say there is a blanket right to secrets in general.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 04:24:22 PM
I'd say there is a blanket right to secrets in general.
Ok, but that is not the law. :P
Unless you want to extend the law of copyright and patent to provide unlimited protection.
Another example of the law breaking with morality. :contract:
:P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 04:32:18 PM
Another example of the law breaking with morality. :contract:
:P
How so?
I find your position not only immoral but odious. Think about the ramifications of a blanket protection for all secrets.
I'm trying to imagine some terrible consequences that might come of that, but I'm not coming up with anything.
Maybe you can help me.
Edit: How do you practice law if you don't believe in protecting peoples' private information anyway? :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 04:47:55 PM
I'm trying to imagine some terrible consequences that might come of that, but I'm not coming up with anything.
Maybe you can help me.
Sure. You propose a blanket protection for all secrets in general. So lets say there is a citizen who wants to know something about the operation of their government; a shareholder who wants to find out something about the decisions made by a Board of Directors or the executives of a corporation; a tax collector who wants to assess whether proper taxes have been paid; a parent who wants to find out what actions a teacher took against their children in a residential school. There are many other examples but I am sure you can see the mischief that is created by what you propose.
Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.
A warrant? So during tax season you'd need warrants for everyone that earns income in the state? Doesn't sound very practical.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 12, 2016, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.
A warrant? So during tax season you'd need warrants for everyone that earns income in the state? Doesn't sound very practical.
Nah. He was talking about audits.
Quote from: frunk on April 12, 2016, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2016, 06:02:05 AM
Uhm, no. The Panama Papers are largely about private individuals and their wholly owned company vehicles, not about corporations.
So companies have a right to privacy? I don't think so. I don't see why it would matter who owns the company, the company isn't a person and doesn't get rights.
I would think there is a qualitative difference between an actual corporation (especially a public one) and simply a corporate vehicle of a private individual. The legal form in which one holds his or her assets should not have an influence on his or her rights.
Besides, again, the Panama Papers are not really about what the corporate vehicle owns, but who are the private individuals owning the corporate vehicle. The distinction may be lost on you, as you seem fairly ignorant on these matters, but this is exactly about the question whether an individual has a right not to disclose which assets he or she owns - whether these are shares in a company or other types of assets.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2016, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 04:47:55 PM
I'm trying to imagine some terrible consequences that might come of that, but I'm not coming up with anything.
Maybe you can help me.
Sure. You propose a blanket protection for all secrets in general.
All of these are examples of exceptions to the general rule that yes, people and organisations have a right to keep their affairs secret and you need a special cause to overcome that right. For example:
QuoteSo lets say there is a citizen who wants to know something about the operation of their government;
That right is far from absolute and is very often (perhaps too often) trumped by some sort of state secrecy. And, of course, unlike the affairs of another private individual, you have an actual legitimate interest in finding out about the affairs of the government of the country you are a citizen of.
Quotea shareholder who wants to find out something about the decisions made by a Board of Directors or the executives of a corporation;
Same thing. As a shareholder, you own a part of the company and have a legitimate interest to do so (and that interest can still be limited or curtailed, especially if your stake is minimal). No such right exists for a competitor or a third party.
Quotea tax collector who wants to assess whether proper taxes have been paid;
That's, as MIM points out, like any power of a public authority investigating a breach of law. Hopefully, you live in a country where such power can only be exercised with a court warrant and not based on an arbitrary decision of an unelected authority.
Quotea parent who wants to find out what actions a teacher took against their children in a residential school.
Likewise, there is a contractual relationship between the parent and the school, and furthermore a right arising out of the parental authority (similarly, the parent has a right to find out about the medical condition of a child and it does not violate the doctor's secrecy). The parent has no right to find out those things about someone else's kid, though.
QuoteThere are many other examples but I am sure you can see the mischief that is created by what you propose.
Sure. Only those who have something to hide should be afraid. We should, generally, do away with snooping warrants or any restrictions on the government reading our mail and emails. After all, it creates too much mischief.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 11:06:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2016, 11:03:30 AM
No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. :(
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
And sue? :P
I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.
It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.
Never had you for a socialist. But I guess you can take Berkut out of a ghetto but you can't take ghetto out of Berkut.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2016, 12:55:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 11:06:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2016, 11:03:30 AM
No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. :(
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
And sue? :P
I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.
It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.
Never had you for a socialist. But I guess you can take Berkut out of a ghetto but you can't take ghetto out of Berkut.
:lol:
Why do you think Berkut's Jewish? :hmm:
Jewish? I thought he was black.
I thought he was Ukrainian? :huh:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 12, 2016, 05:35:45 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 12, 2016, 05:13:47 PM
Governments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.
A warrant? So during tax season you'd need warrants for everyone that earns income in the state? Doesn't sound very practical.
Nah. He was talking about audits.
No, he was talking about the routine checking of taxpayer documents that are required to be filed along with a return. Your notion of blanket secrecy does away with that.
QuoteGovernments, public corporations and residential schools don't have rights. So those aren't covered under any blanket right to privacy. The tax collector can get a warrant.
I see, so just one question into the discussion and your theory of blanket privacy rights isnt so absolute after all.
But there are further problems with your theory. I am not sure what you mean by a "public corporation". Do you mean a publicly traded company? In that case how do you get out of the problem of a shareholder being faced with a wall of secrecy? What about a minority shareholder in a non listed company? Do you just leave them with no recourse because of your blanket rule?
I am not sure what you mean by "residential schools don't have rights". The entities that run those schools (which are typically privately run institutions) certainly do.
Go back and think about this a bit more.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2016, 12:55:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2016, 11:06:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2016, 11:03:30 AM
No-one ever sympathizes with the lawyers. :(
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
And sue? :P
I have no problem with lawyers, but it is annoying to see someone not just benefit from a screwed up system, but turn around and try to make a moral argument for why the system is actually a positive.
It would be like OJs lawyer getting up and arguing that not only does he deserve the best possible defense, but they actually deserved it and we should thank OJ for getting rid of her.
Never had you for a socialist. But I guess you can take Berkut out of a ghetto but you can't take ghetto out of Berkut.
You understand there is a difference between advocating against crony capitalism and being a communist right?
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2016, 12:44:16 AM
That right is far from absolute and is very often (perhaps too often) trumped by some sort of state secrecy. And, of course, unlike the affairs of another private individual, you have an actual legitimate interest in finding out about the affairs of the government of the country you are a citizen of.
I was not arguing for an absolute right to disclosure. I was arguing against a the blanket protection of secrets. There are of course circumstances where there is a need to protect secrecy. I dealt with some examples regarding contractual rights and statutory rights that do protect some secrets in some circumstances. That is when I was met with the argument that all secrets should always be protected.
The same goes for the rest of your responses. Please address the arguments that were actually made.
A corporation, according to the United States Supreme Court, is a person endowed with the panoply of divinely ordained constitutional rights enjoyed by living, breathing human beings.
A corporation, in reality, is a piece of paper that can be called into being with a few pen stokes and a modest fee paid to any pseudo-sovereign of convenience from the old Caribees to the islands of the vast Pacific to (yes) the US states. And these days, with the internet, there isn't often isn't even a pen and a piece of paper any more.
Some ordinary folk look at this askance.
And I can't really say I blame them.
In the US, can corporations get drafted (when you have the draft)? Do corporations do jury duty?
They only have rights, no duties other than taxes. And that often only in theory.
Corporations are, generally, associations of people (that's what the Latin root of the word means and in fact in the old days the word "corporation" was used much more broadly, to denote any organised group of people). There is no reason why people who associate into a corporation and act within such corporation's structure were to lose some of the rights they had outside of the corporation, except to the extent such limitation stems from the corporation's charter.
If I run my own business and my neighbour runs his own business, and we have certain rights when doing so, why would we lose such rights when we combined our businesses into a corporation, with each of us as a 50/50 shareholder?
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2016, 12:30:37 AM
Corporations are, generally, associations of people
Put aside more a moment that corporation can be a single person entity (and in the matters at issue here often are).
A partnership is an association of people.
A corporation is not. It is a chartered entity created by statute. It does have personality (if not personhood) above and beyond the persons that create it (and often leave it). It is not a group of shareholders, or directors, or officer, or creditors or stakeholders, or any combination - it is both more and less.
Quote(that's what the Latin root of the word means and in fact in the old days the word "corporation" was used much more broadly, to denote any organised group of people).
The modern corporation is far removed from its historical roots . . .
QuoteThere is no reason why people who associate into a corporation and act within such corporation's structure were to lose some of the rights they had outside of the corporation
No. and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.
So, are you saying for example that a corporation could be deprived of property without a court decision because the fifth amendment does not apply to it?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2016, 12:46:31 AM
and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.
Is this the case? I can't think of any rights that individuals operating through corporations have that I don't have.
I mean I am just baffled by your refusal to understand and agree with the Citizens United case (barring perhaps your political hostility). Corporations are ultimately extensions of their owners - who, ultimately, are people. They are not some mystical, inhuman beings - they are vehicles for people and their capital.
So, going back to the original discussion - if I have a right to secrecy when I keep my assets in my own personal back account, why should I lose that right if I invest those assets into a corpote vehicle (save of course to the extent preciputated by the nature of the corporation - i.e. vis-a-vis its management and other shareholders).
Our Industry minister has been caught red-handed in the Panama Papers. Paperwork shows he was administrator of offshore companies at least until 2002, when he was already in politics. It's not really known if what he did with them was legal or not, but he's lied about it publicly and that casts him in a very bad light.
EDIT: He has just quit.
No more exciting revelations for Norway so far.
The biggest bank is still a bit red-faced, due to having broken both internal ethical guidelines (who knew bankers had them) and actively helped setting up shell companies in the Seychelles.
While not technically illegal, it's a dodgy practice suitable only for one thing; tax avoidance. However, in their defence, it's the individual who did not report the "investment" who broke the law, not the bank.
There's been discussion about scrapping a 200 year old practice of full transparency about taxes. Each year, every citizen of Norway's full tax report is open to the public. While some feel this is invading their privacy, I think this is the best way to avoid more shady dealings.
It's not like their Internet browsing history is being made public.
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2016, 04:18:46 AM
No more exciting revelations for Norway so far.
The biggest bank is still a bit red-faced, due to having broken both internal ethical guidelines (who knew bankers had them) and actively helped setting up shell companies in the Seychelles.
While not technically illegal, it's a dodgy practice suitable only for one thing; tax avoidance. However, in their defence, it's the individual who did not report the "investment" who broke the law, not the bank.
There's been discussion about scrapping a 200 year old practice of full transparency about taxes. Each year, every citizen of Norway's full tax report is open to the public. While some feel this is invading their privacy, I think this is the best way to avoid more shady dealings.
It's not like their Internet browsing history is being made public.
Sounds like a shopping list for kidnappers and extortionists of all kinds.
Incidentally, it's always nations with oil that are most fucked up - be it Norway, Saudi Arabia or Alberta. I guess having a lot of free money allows them to practice idiocy that would have sunken less endowed nations much sooner.
If the corporation is public, then you can find out lots of stuff about them.
The Edgar (http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html) site may be the single one my browser suggests more than Languish.
Yes I use it that often.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2016, 04:40:46 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 15, 2016, 04:18:46 AM
No more exciting revelations for Norway so far.
The biggest bank is still a bit red-faced, due to having broken both internal ethical guidelines (who knew bankers had them) and actively helped setting up shell companies in the Seychelles.
While not technically illegal, it's a dodgy practice suitable only for one thing; tax avoidance. However, in their defence, it's the individual who did not report the "investment" who broke the law, not the bank.
There's been discussion about scrapping a 200 year old practice of full transparency about taxes. Each year, every citizen of Norway's full tax report is open to the public. While some feel this is invading their privacy, I think this is the best way to avoid more shady dealings.
It's not like their Internet browsing history is being made public.
Sounds like a shopping list for kidnappers and extortionists of all kinds.
Incidentally, it's always nations with oil that are most fucked up - be it Norway, Saudi Arabia or Alberta. I guess having a lot of free money allows them to practice idiocy that would have sunken less endowed nations much sooner.
:lmfao:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 15, 2016, 04:50:56 AM
If the corporation is public, then you can find out lots of stuff about them.
The Edgar (http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html) site may be the single one my browser suggests more than Languish.
Yes I use it that often.
Well, of course. Public companies are a different matter whatsoever as shares are publicly traded and you have to know what you are buying.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2016, 04:40:46 AM
Incidentally, it's always nations with oil that are most fucked up - be it Norway, Saudi Arabia or Alberta. I guess having a lot of free money allows them to practice idiocy that would have sunken less endowed nations much sooner.
Alberta is not a nation, Lettow.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2016, 12:30:37 AM
Corporations are, generally, associations of people (that's what the Latin root of the word means and in fact in the old days the word "corporation" was used much more broadly, to denote any organised group of people). There is no reason why people who associate into a corporation and act within such corporation's structure were to lose some of the rights they had outside of the corporation, except to the extent such limitation stems from the corporation's charter.
If I run my own business and my neighbour runs his own business, and we have certain rights when doing so, why would we lose such rights when we combined our businesses into a corporation, with each of us as a 50/50 shareholder?
Do you stop being an individual when you form a corporation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 01:33:43 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2016, 12:46:31 AM
and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.
Is this the case? I can't think of any rights that individuals operating through corporations have that I don't have.
Hobby Lobby.
By imputing personal speech rights to the corporation, the corporation is then permitted to disregard labor laws that conflict with the *corporation's* religious beliefs. Control over the levers of corporate management thus becomes a lever to amplify the influence of the particular views of the corporate controller that is unavailable to those who lack that control.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2016, 01:35:37 AM
I mean I am just baffled by your refusal to understand and agree with the Citizens United case (barring perhaps your political hostility). Corporations are ultimately extensions of their owners - who, ultimately, are people. They are not some mystical, inhuman beings - they are vehicles for people and their capital.
I oppose Citizens United precisely *because* it treats corps as mystical beings, and not (as prior precedent provided) mere vehicles for people and their capital
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2016, 08:47:27 AM
Control over the levers of corporate management thus becomes a lever to amplify the influence of the particular views of the corporate controller that is unavailable to those who lack that control.
Sole proprietors cannot exempt out of paying for whore pills?
Quote from: The Brain on April 15, 2016, 12:09:29 AM
In the US, can corporations get drafted (when you have the draft)?
It never occurred to me before. Corporations must be women. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 01:33:43 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 15, 2016, 12:46:31 AM
and there is no reason that the mere decision to form a corporation should expand the rights they have as individuals, absent some particular public policy purpose that such expansion would serve.
Is this the case? I can't think of any rights that individuals operating through corporations have that I don't have.
Then you misunderstand one of the main reasons to incorporate - limited liability. If you act through a corporation the maximum you can lose is your investment in the corporation. If you do it personally you can lose everything you have.
But dont worry the US Supreme Court made a similar error.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2016, 01:35:37 AM
I mean I am just baffled by your refusal to understand and agree with the Citizens United case (barring perhaps your political hostility). Corporations are ultimately extensions of their owners - who, ultimately, are people. They are not some mystical, inhuman beings - they are vehicles for people and their capital.
So, going back to the original discussion - if I have a right to secrecy when I keep my assets in my own personal back account, why should I lose that right if I invest those assets into a corpote vehicle (save of course to the extent preciputated by the nature of the corporation - i.e. vis-a-vis its management and other shareholders).
You would make a great Republican appointment to the US Supreme Court. If corporations are extensions of the shareholders, why can't the shareholders be sued directly?
Thanks. I will make sure to send in my cv when President Trump gets sworn in.
Quote from: Martinus on April 16, 2016, 05:01:20 AM
Thanks. I will make sure to send in my cv when President Trump gets sworn in.
Too gay, but with correct opinions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 15, 2016, 11:29:21 PM
Then you misunderstand one of the main reasons to incorporate - limited liability. If you act through a corporation the maximum you can lose is your investment in the corporation. If you do it personally you can lose everything you have.
Which was why even in the railroad age corporations were still pretty restricted - minimum capitalization, real par value requirements, limitations on corporate purposes, etc. All that got swept away in the US in the late 19th century by a classic de-regulatory race to the bottom as states competed for charters. The present situation has been around so long that we've come to accept that forming corporations is virtually a meaningless act. But they were and are creatures of state statutes, nothing more.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2016, 11:17:39 AM
Sole proprietors cannot exempt out of paying for whore pills?
They can because they are human beings with religious beliefs.
The fundamental misconception here is the idea of people acting "through" corporations. That's OK to say in a colloquial sense but it's not correct. By law the corporate is a separate, artificial person. As an attorney, Marti knows that when you represent a corporation you represent the corporation itself. Not the shareholders (even if controlling), not even the Board of Directors. The corporation itself is legally separate from all the people that have certain defined rights in relation to it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 16, 2016, 09:00:57 AM
As an attorney, Marti knows
Try it again, without the sarcasm. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on April 16, 2016, 11:05:06 AM
Try it again, without the sarcasm. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX8oPjPU5x8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX8oPjPU5x8)
The Economist did a very good infographics showing the reasons why people could keep an offshore shell company.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Foriginal-size%2Fimages%2F2016%2F04%2Fblogs%2Fgraphic-detail%2F20160409_woc957_3.png&hash=5907ce247a63827dcb34af8c5f7b399bc71fccd7)