Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

westbee t1_j1gtrmm wrote

Reply to comment by SlipperyGaloshes in Volunteers deliver thousands of free Hanukkah meals to Holocaust survivors in New York City by AmethystOrator

I can't wrap my head around that number.

There are 15 thousand people between the ages of 85-105 that are holocaust survivors??

Seems far fetched.

EDIT: https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2010/table01.htm

There are 141K people in New York city that are 85 plus years old. So more than 10 percent of those people are holocaust survivors.

It's sounding more and more farfetched to me.

39

Arnlaugur1 t1_j1gy6uy wrote

NYC has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, that plus that the Jewish community has well established roots in NYC (so old people are less likely to move out of the city). Jews make up 13% of NYC. With that in mind I could totally see that as possible, maybe not likely but definitely possible

113

TarryBuckwell t1_j1i05u7 wrote

I thought Brooklyn alone had a larger Jewish population than Israel

15

Arnlaugur1 t1_j1jfo6g wrote

I've heard something like that as well and might have once been true seeing as Israel is a young country of still mostly first or second generation immigrants or might be true if you only count Jewish people born in Israel with Israeli parents

2

DredZedPrime t1_j1gycaq wrote

Really doesn't seem that far fetched to me. You've probably never been in NYC. The Jewish population is pretty damn big, and it is one of the places where a hell of a lot of survivors settled, since it's where a lot of them would have entered the US.

55

westbee t1_j1hdlcu wrote

Did you look at the numbers?

141,000 people in the city of New York are 85 plus years old.

10%+ of those people are holocaust survivors? No fucking way.

−33

jayb556677 t1_j1hml8w wrote

Jewish people make up 13% of NYC so the idea that they make up 13% of the 141,000 seems reasonable

44

westbee t1_j1i3z12 wrote

Are you saying that every single Jewish person is a holocaust survivor?

The only way that would make sense is if 100% of Jewish people are holocaust survivors.

−10

coat_hanger_dias t1_j1i4dn0 wrote

Sure, but for this to hold true, 100% of the 85+ year old Jewish population would need to be holocaust survivors, which just isn't possible. Being a Jewish person that was alive somewhere on earth during the years the holocaust happened does not make you a "holocaust survivor".

I'm not a survivor of the war in Ukraine, for example, just because I'm alive and living life completely unaffected on the other side of the planet.

−10

canadianjumpingbean t1_j1hv9ol wrote

What's your political motivation for undermining holocaust survivors?

You have gone beyond curiosity at this point, and have ventured into denial.

15

Indocede t1_j1hz24f wrote

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.

−7

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.

18

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."

−17

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.

10

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.

−1

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.

−14

somo47 t1_j1ir27c wrote

Oh I see, you’re either very confused or trolling.

Either way stay in school bud, some day hopefully you’ll be able to correctly use the phrases you’re parroting.

6

Indocede t1_j1iwf9g wrote

It is 100% confirmation bias.

Your petty insults don't change that fact.

1