3 ms·

I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin b

by atonse 7y ago

I love this idea – of an actual, genuine debate on this topic where an actual corporate executive can make some points (I know they will be Tim-Cook-like spin but debate is better than asynchronous speeches where people talk at each other) Update: I realized I didn't write the second half of my sentence... which makes me sound like a corporate shill. The second half is... AND someone on the other side can immediately call bullshit on their spin, but we can have a proper debate on the inadequacy of current Federal tax policy.

Shivetya 7y ago
Well only if an explanation about how these companies arrive at these low tax payments. It is one thing to say "You did it too" but the public cannot be properly served unless we have a factual discussion of why their tax payments are this low and the benefits to both the company and public at large are shown. eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always make sense. the NYT would better serve the public showing just how abusive the tax law is because it mostly it is a political tool for calling in favors and punishing those who don't play ball besides being a revenue tool.
- nartz 7y ago
  It would be great to have a few fact sheets sent through beforehand, and main questions published and moderated properly, as opposed to a political high level back and forth solving nothing.
mcguire 7y ago
In my opinion, debates are all about spin. They're too short to allow proper analysis of the responses, and mostly concern the personalities of the people. Two examples: T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, and a round-table I once attended with Dijkstra and Larry Loucks of IBM, along with a couple of other professors who were completely outclassed by those two. EWD was slow and very precise, it was clear that he was thinking deeply about the topics, but he didn't actually say much in the time alloted; Larry was fast, facile, and rather shallow, he was of the IBM style (he who talks loudest is in charge).
- what-do-I-know 7y ago
  I agree that typical debates are far from perfect, but NY Times and many other media outlets are reporting a very biased slant on this topic. There’s effectively only one voice on the debate stage. We’ve seen this many times before. A cartoon character of a complex issue is created, and the media pump out clickbait stories based on that. What’s the most effective way to motivate a more accurate discussion of this topic?
wbronitsky 7y ago
Are you saying that every time the New York Times publishes an article, and a corporation disagrees with the vetted, researched facts published by the paper of record in the United States, that we should hear out the corporation in a pubic forum? I vehemently disagree. Facts are not up for debate, no matter how much money is behind the people who would like to debate them. Additionally, implying that corporate executives don't have a platform to push their side of whatever argument they are fighting is inane.
- atonse 7y ago
  Wow, that's not at all what I'm saying. Believe me, I am STRONGLY in the camp of "these goddamn companies need to be held accountable for their tax dodging." However, you can't change the _fact_ that what they're doing is "legal." The issue is with federal tax policy that needs to be changed. I'm talking about the nature of calling bullshit on what companies do to their face, rather than PR firms talking to each other, and there's value in that. Here's the spin that happens (and it's especially bad because it's just published without much challenge): Any company that dodges taxes always say (to quote Tim Cook): "We pay every single penny of taxes we owe" – which says NOTHING about all the tax dodging these companies did to arrive at a minuscule bill of what was owed, and then, sure, they paid what they owed, correct. But in that format, where Cook makes a speech, and then someone writes a rebuttal article 2 weeks later, nothing really gets done. In a debate format, you can quickly say "yeah that's bullshit. You're making a semantic and laser focused argument. It's like saying you didn't kill that person by strangling them, they died because their brain stopped receiving oxygenated blood." And there's a public record of you pushing back against this BS corporate-speak. You _can't_ do that in the normal, traditional way this is done, which is that: 1) newspaper publishes article of wrongdoing 2) PR firm publishes press release with insane amounts of spin 3) nothing changes.
  - wbronitsky 7y ago
    It would continue to seem like the argument here is that we should want corporations to rebut NYT articles in a public forum, which I continue to disagree with, regardless of what the argument is. While we should hold the "truth" to account, open debate cannot be the way to deal with this at every impasse. FedEx is more than welcome to write an article, post a video, or do anything else to rebut the article published by the NYT, but instead has chosen a narrow path in which they can surprise the other party in person with attacks. I fail to understand why open debate is the best way to solve this; at the very least, I don't know where the time to watch these debates about... FedEx and tax avoidance... among the other issues I try to keep current on
mandevil 7y ago
Eh, real-time live debates are terrible formats for this because they encourage and reward Gish Gallops. This is why scientists stopped debating creationists, because they discovered through repeated trials that it just rewards people who have less shame and are always willing to spout more lies. In theory, the other guy can call BS, but generally it takes a little bit of time, even with Google, to figure out where the lie is, and then even longer to explain it, by which point the liar simply moves on to another one.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Reedx 7y ago
  That's mostly the case, though it's possible to have substantive real-time debate. You need a strong format, with ample time and good faith actors who will steel man each other's positions instead of strawmanning them. So ultimately you have both sides debating the strongest version of the opposing side. Here's an example: https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195 https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195

by atonse 7y ago

Shivetya 7y ago

Well only if an explanation about how these companies arrive at these low tax payments. It is one thing to say "You did it too" but the public cannot be properly served unless we have a factual discussion of why their tax payments are this low and the benefits to both the company and public at large are shown. eighty thousand plus pages of tax laws aren't meant to be simply to understand nor do the outcomes always make sense. the NYT would better serve the public showing just how abusive the tax law is because it mostly it is a political tool for calling in favors and punishing those who don't play ball besides being a revenue tool.

nartz 7y ago
It would be great to have a few fact sheets sent through beforehand, and main questions published and moderated properly, as opposed to a political high level back and forth solving nothing.

mcguire 7y ago

In my opinion, debates are all about spin. They're too short to allow proper analysis of the responses, and mostly concern the personalities of the people. Two examples: T.H. Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce, and a round-table I once attended with Dijkstra and Larry Loucks of IBM, along with a couple of other professors who were completely outclassed by those two. EWD was slow and very precise, it was clear that he was thinking deeply about the topics, but he didn't actually say much in the time alloted; Larry was fast, facile, and rather shallow, he was of the IBM style (he who talks loudest is in charge).

what-do-I-know 7y ago
I agree that typical debates are far from perfect, but NY Times and many other media outlets are reporting a very biased slant on this topic. There’s effectively only one voice on the debate stage. We’ve seen this many times before. A cartoon character of a complex issue is created, and the media pump out clickbait stories based on that. What’s the most effective way to motivate a more accurate discussion of this topic?

wbronitsky 7y ago

Are you saying that every time the New York Times publishes an article, and a corporation disagrees with the vetted, researched facts published by the paper of record in the United States, that we should hear out the corporation in a pubic forum? I vehemently disagree. Facts are not up for debate, no matter how much money is behind the people who would like to debate them. Additionally, implying that corporate executives don't have a platform to push their side of whatever argument they are fighting is inane.

atonse 7y ago
Wow, that's not at all what I'm saying. Believe me, I am STRONGLY in the camp of "these goddamn companies need to be held accountable for their tax dodging." However, you can't change the _fact_ that what they're doing is "legal." The issue is with federal tax policy that needs to be changed. I'm talking about the nature of calling bullshit on what companies do to their face, rather than PR firms talking to each other, and there's value in that. Here's the spin that happens (and it's especially bad because it's just published without much challenge): Any company that dodges taxes always say (to quote Tim Cook): "We pay every single penny of taxes we owe" – which says NOTHING about all the tax dodging these companies did to arrive at a minuscule bill of what was owed, and then, sure, they paid what they owed, correct. But in that format, where Cook makes a speech, and then someone writes a rebuttal article 2 weeks later, nothing really gets done. In a debate format, you can quickly say "yeah that's bullshit. You're making a semantic and laser focused argument. It's like saying you didn't kill that person by strangling them, they died because their brain stopped receiving oxygenated blood." And there's a public record of you pushing back against this BS corporate-speak. You _can't_ do that in the normal, traditional way this is done, which is that: 1) newspaper publishes article of wrongdoing 2) PR firm publishes press release with insane amounts of spin 3) nothing changes.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  It would continue to seem like the argument here is that we should want corporations to rebut NYT articles in a public forum, which I continue to disagree with, regardless of what the argument is. While we should hold the "truth" to account, open debate cannot be the way to deal with this at every impasse. FedEx is more than welcome to write an article, post a video, or do anything else to rebut the article published by the NYT, but instead has chosen a narrow path in which they can surprise the other party in person with attacks. I fail to understand why open debate is the best way to solve this; at the very least, I don't know where the time to watch these debates about... FedEx and tax avoidance... among the other issues I try to keep current on

mandevil 7y ago

Eh, real-time live debates are terrible formats for this because they encourage and reward Gish Gallops. This is why scientists stopped debating creationists, because they discovered through repeated trials that it just rewards people who have less shame and are always willing to spout more lies. In theory, the other guy can call BS, but generally it takes a little bit of time, even with Google, to figure out where the lie is, and then even longer to explain it, by which point the liar simply moves on to another one.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Reedx 7y ago
That's mostly the case, though it's possible to have substantive real-time debate. You need a strong format, with ample time and good faith actors who will steel man each other's positions instead of strawmanning them. So ultimately you have both sides debating the strongest version of the opposing side. Here's an example: https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195 https://youtu.be/m0-oC_49fq4?t=195