He's not really thinking that. He is just concerned about society being to politically correct about specific things.
I.e. you could probably completely discriminate someone by height, hair color, ... but not by race specifically for some reason.
Good example - we do have statistical data that proves beyond doubt that men have more automotive accidents than women. Yet in the EU it's illegal for insurance companies to charge men more for car insurance than they would charge a woman for the same insurance, because apparently that's sexist. But somehow no one has any problems with charging a younger driver more than an older driver, even if they both have identical amount of experience, because data supports that younger drivers have more accidents regardless of their experience behind the wheel - and yet that's not ageist and isn't banned.
I doubt that there are so many "older drivers" with comparable levels of experience to "younger drivers" that such an evaluation of risk could be beyond doubt. Are you sure such data exists?
Absolutely. A 25 year old driver who passed their test a day before will pay much much smaller premium than a 20 year old driver who also just passed their test(even if the 20 year old driver already has 2 years of experience and no accidents their insurance will still be more expensive). I obviously don't have access to the actuarial data used by the insurance companies, but it's very easy to check this with many online insurance comparators.
Why are you so sure that such data exists if you have never seen it?
I'm already slightly inclined to suspend my disbelief, because I know a little bit about developmental psychology that sort of corroborates what you're claiming about the ageism thing, however, if you want to start discriminating based on race, you have to be ready to bear a massive burden of proof when you make racist claims. Would you be so blindly accepting if I threatened your life, liberty or property for no reason other than the color of your skin? Wouldn't you want conclusive evidence, quality controlled and beyond a reasonable doubt?
The data the parent is claiming to exist is discrimination based on age, which is indeed rather simple to confirm.
>however, if you want to start discriminating based on race, you have to be ready to bear a massive burden of proof when you make racist claims. Would you be so blindly accepting if I threatened your life, liberty or property for no reason other than the color of your skin? Wouldn't you want conclusive evidence, quality controlled and beyond a reasonable doubt?
>>Why are you so sure that such data exists if you have never seen it?
Because when you ring up an insurance company and ask why
(as a 20-year old) your insurance is higher than that of a 25 year old(with also zero driving experience) you will be told that it's because of your age. Unless they are lying to you of course, which is hard to prove or disprove.
>> however, if you want to start discriminating based on race
Well, you turned first. Here we are all talking about racism, and then you claim age inversely affects driver risk. In context, I thought you were somehow trying to convince me that circular reasoning and appeals to authority ought to dispel any doubts I have about the validity of racism, but it sounds like you were trying to say something else, and I could be doing a better job of understanding what you are trying to say.
>unless they are lying
They may just be ignorant. Maybe someone else lied to them and they are just parroting the lie. Remember, the people who price insurance exist in a world where polygraphs are admissible evidence in a U.S. court of law; misconceptions are everywhere and I think we must be cautious, lest our generalizations be hasty.
In the U.S. we already tried to institutionalize racial discrimination. From reading the history, I think that "too much political correctness" is preferable to "separatist paramilitary groups and city police departments having shooting wars in my neighborhood."
I disagree and the dichotomy is a wrong one, since suppression of issues just leaves the way of taking justice into your own hands in the way you described
The dichotomy is real, and you are comparing apples and oranges.
Yes, there are white separatist paramilitaries operating within the United States who have cropped up in reaction to affirmative action and social justice, but it won't blow up the same way the black panthers did. It's apples and oranges, because today's U.S. white separatist paramilitary groups are not targets of the U.S. government. The FBI isn't assassinating members of the Aryan Brotherhood nor are politicians passing gun control laws to curb the flow of weapons into their territories. The U.S. government is not actively persecuting white supremacists. There is no COINTELPRO for white supremacists.
There is no escalation here, no conflict. Nazis get a free lunch in the U.S.
