Hm. Woody Allen doesn't look that religious to me. And according, for example, to this article [1] DNA tests can be requested (even by Israeli religious authorities) to confirm "Jewishness".
The article makes it clear that the Israeli rabbinate considers "Jewishness" something that has nothing to do with practice, but with blood and descent. So it's definitely not religious.
You're right that there are multiple ethnicities under the Jewish label, but 90-95% of the US Jewish population is in fact Ashkenazi, making it a relatively homogeneous ethnic group.
The article describes racist and hateful comments, but the only examples it gives are someone complaining about her statistics and someone accusing the organization supplying her statistics of being backed by China. Neither of those seem racist to me. The comments may be right or wrong, though the article doesn't even try to figure out which, I don't see how they're racist.
In another post comments are claiming that pro-Amazon messages are astroturfed from Amazon. Are these people racists against Bezos or Amazon leadership? Are Asians incapable of posting poor statistics?
> The message might have drawn racist comments on Twitter or Facebook, but this was the world’s biggest professional social network — one where people had to use their real names and list their employer. What was the worst they would say?
> “This statistic is crap and from a questionable source,”
Poe’s law is in full effect here. If you’re going to post a stat you should be ready to fire back at anyone responding like this, telling them, and everyone reading, why your sources/stats are legit. Not quietly reporting them for racism and hoping their comment is hidden. It should be seen as a chance to cement your position, yet this is a response as if those nutty CCP-referencing comments are a danger to your position. To the sort that would be inclined to agree with such replies, attempts at “censorship” only weakens your position.
It doesn’t matter if the objections are just dog whistles, this sort of refusal - or inability - to confront them is what forms the groundwork for anti-liberal rhetoric. Snowflake, censor, etc, you’re earning the labels.
If you only post a view where everyone will accept it without question, you’ve set out from the start to accomplish nothing but momentary, smug self-satisfaction.
11 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 35.9 ms ] threadBut this is not what HN tells us.
Hm hm. What happened to the Jews?
1. https://neworleans.adl.org/news/adl-deeply-disturbed-by-char...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/12/what-do...
You're right that there are multiple ethnicities under the Jewish label, but 90-95% of the US Jewish population is in fact Ashkenazi, making it a relatively homogeneous ethnic group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
In another post comments are claiming that pro-Amazon messages are astroturfed from Amazon. Are these people racists against Bezos or Amazon leadership? Are Asians incapable of posting poor statistics?
> “This statistic is crap and from a questionable source,”
Poe’s law is in full effect here. If you’re going to post a stat you should be ready to fire back at anyone responding like this, telling them, and everyone reading, why your sources/stats are legit. Not quietly reporting them for racism and hoping their comment is hidden. It should be seen as a chance to cement your position, yet this is a response as if those nutty CCP-referencing comments are a danger to your position. To the sort that would be inclined to agree with such replies, attempts at “censorship” only weakens your position.
It doesn’t matter if the objections are just dog whistles, this sort of refusal - or inability - to confront them is what forms the groundwork for anti-liberal rhetoric. Snowflake, censor, etc, you’re earning the labels.
If you only post a view where everyone will accept it without question, you’ve set out from the start to accomplish nothing but momentary, smug self-satisfaction.