>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.

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.