Indocede t1_j1hz24f wrote
Reply to comment by canadianjumpingbean in Volunteers deliver thousands of free Hanukkah meals to Holocaust survivors in New York City by AmethystOrator
Statistical disbelief does not equate undermining holocaust survivors.
What is your political motivation for rushing to an unsubstantiated conclusion about their intention?
Edit: And furthermore, if you want to convince people genuinely, you don't rush to conclusions and assume the very worst. Such nonsense to assume someone has some deep-seated prejudice or bigoted motivation because they can't believe the numbers.
somo47 t1_j1hzvt3 wrote
How is their conclusion unsubstantiated? If they were just curious at how the article reached that number there’s multiple sources cited in this thread outlining the plausibility. The continued disbelief despite evidence presented makes their motivation suspect.
Indocede t1_j1i0bf4 wrote
You are assuming they have read each of those sources in this thread. It is extremely possible they have not. Not everyone reads every comment and subchain. You are acting upon confirmation bias, where you see a source and assume everyone must have seen it. This is not true.
If you are going to insinuate someone of Holocaust denialism or bigotry of some form, you need a lot more then "well they didn't acknowledge these particular comments I saw."
somo47 t1_j1i12p1 wrote
That’s not how confirmation bias works, the sources are direct replies to the person’s question and they directly replied to those threads continuing to disagree. Confirmation bias isn’t “seeing a source and assuming everyone must have seen it”.
Confirmation bias is cherry picking information that agrees with you and neglecting to address the data that doesn’t.
Indocede t1_j1iymua wrote
>Confirmation bias is cherry picking information that agrees with you and neglecting to address the data that doesn’t.
You cherry pick comments about population demographics, but you do not address reasonable critiques. It is entirely fair to believe a Jewish population existed in NYC before the Holocaust. If this is true, it is unlikely that the entire population of elderly Jews in NYC are Holocaust survivors.
It is confirmation bias because from a few particular comments about demographics, you have decided that someone must have some subversive agenda. It could not possibly be someone who simply can't believe there can be 10,000 people in a single city who survived horrible, inhumane suffering over 70 years ago, pushing them into an age bracket where people start dying of old age consistently.
I find this insinuation to be utterly obnoxious and disrespectful. Insinuating bigotry should be done with actual substance. It diminishes the discussion and resolution to such a horrible thing when people want to talk about the anguish of dealing someone in disbelief about demographics.
Undermining Holocaust survivors... no one has actually explained what that means. It's especially ridiculous when there is a simultaneous movement to record the stories of these survivors with priority given their age, knowing in a few short years, the community could disappear entirely.
Cherry picking a few comments on Reddit to insinuate bigotry while ignoring a pile of reason someone might believe old age has now limited the number of people impacted by an event a literal lifetime ago.
Indocede t1_j1i1nfm wrote
Yes, you cherry picked a few comments that you saw and are biasing your argument around them. You are neglecting the plausibility that the person did not see those comments. It is absolutely a form of confirmation bias.
Edit: And for clarity the argument here isn't whether or not it is plausible there exists that many survivors in NYC. The argument is whether or not it is plausible for someone to disbelieve that figure.
canadianjumpingbean t1_j1i1udu wrote
Ok Kanye
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments