No, because companies have absolutely 0 incentive to stand by you if doing so becomes difficult. They are amoral, when they throw you under the bus it's like a lion killing a gazelle. Just something they do. You should not ever trust any company in any way.
Idk if I agree with this. There needs to be some level of trust. I trust them to pay my paycheck, I trust them to respect the contract I signed when hired. I trust them to give me my tax information in a timely manner. Now, those are some examples that are backed by law or contracts, but if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company.
I'm also highly skeptical of all companies and make sure boundaries exist that when crossed will result in my departure. But there is definitely a balance, and some level of trust needs to exist.
exactly what i was thinking when i read your examples.
this isn’t trust in the company, it’s trust in societal infrastructure.
> if you don't trust any company in any way, then you could be missing out on some of the benefits of said company
maybe, but you haven’t shown that in your arguments. i would love to be convinced otherwise but have seen too much evidence to support the idea that companies should always be held at arm’s length.
individuals in the company can be great. but even they will stand by while you are put through the ringer because, understandably, they have their own problems (kids, mortgage, medicine etc) and you won’t be able to help them if they quit out of solidarity with you.
You don't need trust for any of those. Those are mutually beneficial; the companies benefit in actually having workers and not having the IRS crawling all over them.
True trust occurs when you believe another party will not harm you in situations where it would benefit them to harm you, or would at the very least have no negative repercussions for them.
Telling a friend a deep secret and then asking them not to tell anyone is trust. Telling them a secret and then making them sign an NDA with financial penalties is a sure sign of a lack of trust.
Christopher Hitchens' debate are others worth watching.
Does these even happen any more in MSM?
I think it would be valuable to somehow expose ordinary people to structured competitive debate, if only because it makes many of these falsehoods evident. This kind of debate uses the rules to select the positions of the parties and when they get to speak. Obviously the last speaker doesn't necessarily win, and the winner doesn't necessarily even believe their own position (so the debate doesn't prove that position right). Yet still, it's much better at educating people on the issues than any "debate" that most people have ever watched.
Moot court and mock trial retain some semblance of argumentation. But you would have to reinvent the kind of formal debate you’re imagining.
Once a measure becomes a target it ceases to function as a good measure.
Is the problem (in your company and the world at large) that open respectful political debate has not got a common set of rules / words? If there was a phrase "I respectfully disagree - I understand that ..." was a phrase used by every TV host, Politician and Facebook poster, would prefacing your words with that make others more open to receiving it?