This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Does this mean insurance companies are forbidden from discriminating by age and sex e.g. for car insurance?
That particular form of discrimination has already cleared its legal hurdles, as far as I know.
Which is bizarre. If women paid higher rates it never would have stood up to challenge.
The law is saying you can't use all these actuarial ways to determine risk. In many states, you can't even use credit reports or arrest records.
Why is there this special carve out to discriminate against men?
Because men think it's gay to organize and demand things. Simple as.
More options
Context Copy link
Who cares?
That's a literal question: Which people care about men being discriminated against, how much do they care about it, and what can they do based on those feelings?
Men's Rights activism is a powerless joke, and equal rights activism has died off and been replaced by a dozen individual interest groups. The people that care don't matter, and the people that matter don't care.
More options
Context Copy link
Disparate impact is severely curtailed for insurance in general, it’s a topic of some annoyance in critical justice theory circles and there are academic articles advocating for limits on “excessive” (defined broadly” disparate impact.
Insurance discrimination is not merely disparate impact. It is disparate treatment. In most (though not all) states you are straightforwardly charged more if you are male than if you are female. The most famous case of a person changing their legal gender to save money (over $1000) on their car insurance is Canadian but it would work in much of the US as well.
Yes, but the point is that disparate impact is explicitly tolerated in insurance more broadly. Insurance providers are not required to ensure that the average premium paid by or payout made to a black person is equal to that paid by or made out to a white person. Real-world indicators for sociocultural groups are obviously in many cases baseline parts of actuarial calculations even when insurers strictly ensure nothing is too egregious or obvious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link