• EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      There is certainly room for an argument that the system in general feeds back into itself so we should, as a society, make an active effort to undo this feedback loop.

      However, if the expected payout in an area is higher, insurance rates in that area are generally going to be higher. This isn’t “racist” no matter what context you put it in. It’s just cold, objective, and heartless numbers that might be the result of racism.

      If a policy ends up charging a specific minority more than others, then that’s probably the point.

      The policy ends up making the insurance company money. Why is that not “probably the point”?

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s just cold, objective, and heartless numbers that might be the result of racism.

        yeah, that’s what red-lining was, and why this is happening.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Red-lining was very deliberately done - at least partially - based on race. Literally even going so far as to label the red-lined areas as “infiltrated.”

          But that being said, this could very well still be a remnant of red-lining, among the multitude of other ways minorities have been historically put at a disadvantage. So, again, I’m open to an argument that it should still be disallowed. But when you start calling numbers “racist” you’re going to lose a lot of people.