Fine, you can chose to see it that way.

But I do believe that we have a bias towards solutions that punish a particular person.[1]

It's an insurance company, if many people drive badly then you can be sure they've factored it in because they don't lose money over a solved problem like that.

I still don't think we should target bad drivers for extra surveillance, because I value the privacy of the bad drivers too much.

Also valuing the privacy of the bad drivers, is just valuing my own privacy down the road. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[2] At first they came for the bad drivers, but I wasn't a bad driver ...

In this case, you either punish a particular person, or punish everyone else through increased average premiums.

Or you invest in making driving safer on average.

For insurance, punishing an individual is improving risk modelling. Insurance companies are also involved in promoting technologies that reduce the risk of claims, as that expands their addressable market by lowering prices without lowering profit.

>Insurance companies are also involved in promoting technologies that reduce the risk of claims

Yeah, that's why trucks and buses beep all over the world.

Thanks for the noise, insurance industry!

Just an FYI, you are probably getting downvoted for drawing a terrible and insensitive analogy between (a) insurance companies and drivers and (b) the perpetrators and victims of a genocide. At least that's why I downvoted your comment.

No such parallel was intended.

How are you getting 'genocide' from the above comment?

You wrote:

> [2] At first they came for the bad drivers, but I wasn't a bad driver ...

This is an allusion to "First they came... ", a poem written by a German Lutheran minister recalling the cowardice of contemporary German intellectuals who would not oppose the Holocaust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

You should be careful using allusions when you don't understand their origins.

> You should be careful using allusions when you don't understand their origins.

Even if I tried, there is literally no way I could possibly self censor myself enough to avoid offending everyone on the internet.

These types, of threads based on offense are a waste of time:

1) If the person claims to be offended, you can't refute that because the offense is an internal state that they claim they are experiencing.

2) If the claim is that someone else maybe offended, then you also can't argue against that because now you are debating on an inference for which there is no firm evidence.

It's like those endgames in chess where you wish you didn't have to move.

Even by responding to this, I lose, because I will be likely down-voted for not being sensitive enough, even when no offense was ever intended.

However I can flip it on you. Go and find proof that I intended to offend with my comment.

I said nothing about your intentions, just pointed out the objective reality of the origin of the allusion you made. You could be very well intended - in fact I assume now you are - but just uninformed about this particular matter.

Try not to be offended by constructive feedback, and now that you know, perhaps think twice before you use that allusion in the future. I've also made similar well-intended mistakes, and I've benefited from others helping me learn and grow from them.

> I said nothing about your intentions,

> You should be careful

You're doing some serious backflips there. As if he isn't being careful enough for your taste. That's just useless drivel.

Suggesting that someone take care when using historical allusions they don't understand is not the same as questioning someone's intentions.

Read the thread again: Once it was clear that they were legitimately unaware of the origin of the allusion they made, the suggestion I made was to be careful in general using such allusions.