A tax haven is a nation with low to no taxes, where foreigners can operate for tax purposes.
The term you are looking for, and almost had, was "tax avoidance".
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It is tax evasion that is illegal.
You might want a little self-reflection about that last sentence and how it paints you as precisely the sort of person that others are rightfully worried about.
There are more important things than money. Having your name dragged through the mud, having people presume you are a disgusting sexist before they have even met you, these are things that can destroy a person regardless of their wealth.
Comments do not fall on a spectrum between "absolutely sexist" and "absolutely not sexist".
Comments exist as fixed points in space, and the observers fall on a spectrum of "absolutely going to call the comment sexist" and "absolutely going to call the comment not sexist".
The men who are "clamming up" are judging the audience of their comments and deciding that the potential costs of honesty are just too high compared to the benefits.
They know that they will no longer get the benefit of the doubt and that they will be convicted without trial. If the punishment for traffic infringements was death and you were immediately judged, convicted and executed by the police officer on the scene, there will be a large number of people who would simply stop driving.
The problem being highlighted here isn't bad communicators. The problem is good communicators being incentivized out of communicating.
It says something about you that you could not comprehend something that obvious.
Imagine if the person in charge of AI Ethics converted to a fundamentalist Christian sect. Their ethics changed and now they think LGBT people should be discriminated against explicitly. Nobody supporting Margaret Mitchell would be defending this new convert's application of the personal ethics in their job. That proves this is merely a convenient argument on their part, not a principled one.
Yes, ethics is agnostic to one's personal convictions when it is your job.
Same as how defense lawyers leave their personal sense of justice out of their jobs.
Same as how sports referees don't let their childhood fandom of a particular team affect their calls.
Same as how actors will be physically intimate with people the opposite of the sexual preference.
One line, one idea. That's the goal. Your eye doesn't need to move if you can get the information you need from the first 30 characters.
Two lines, one idea. That's a recipe for cognitive disaster. It forces you to read the entirety of the preceding line to understand what is happening on the next one.
As a good example, reading logs. You can scan down the log to find what you want. Imagine if the time was placed at the end of the line. It doesn't matter how many characters on a line in that case, the reading the log is a massive cognitive load.
Telling people you aren't a racist and didn't mean the thing they consider to be racist in a racist way is in no way denying the other party's feelings are valid.
"Fake news" was first used in the 17th century. Today, it is a term deployed by President Trump against news outlets he doesn't like. But he didn't invent the term. He heard it from someone using it against news outlets he does like.
> The very term "social justice warrior" is an invention of the reactionary right.
No, it wasn't. It was invented by the Left, unironically. They would call themselves Social Justice Warriors. Many leftists still proudly maintain that they "fight for social justice". Same energy. It was only later that the term was used derisively by the right, putting the term in ironic quotation marks.
It is exactly the same as "fake news"; originally used by someone in the lefty media (CNN?) to deride Fox News, but popularised by Trump against CNN. Or did you think Trump came up with that all by himself?