Odd, I don't see this claim in your screenshot. This is starting to be a pattern. Are you sure it wasn't in reference to the thing you quoted in your post?
"You listed some of the left-wing circles of power and influence which pretending to be Jewish can give you access to as: Hollywood, banking, business, globalist agendas, and academia."
Or you ignored it., that's the real pattern. You keep attributing thing to me I can directly refute with a screenshot, which you either ignore or pretend to not see.
"Nowhere did I say that pretending to be Jewish would give someone specific access to those."
What does that have to do with your claim that acceptable standard of evidence is only subjective to a degree?
Are you for real? How does one obtain DNA evidence when the DNA no longer exists? That's where the "to a degree" comes in.
"I have lack of experience with theories about the beginnings of the Universe; this does not imply whatsoever that I doubt them."
Replace "experience" with "understanding", if you like.
It isn't simply the lack of experience, it's the questioning. Since you lack experience, you would naturally experience some doubt upon encountering an explanation. "Since I have no experience, how do I know this is real/why should I trust this source?" The doubt is a direct result of the lack of experience.
Can we make up our minds about what this initial claim is? Also do you notice how the trope being moot has nothing to do with and no affect whatsoever on whether the people in question were Jews pretending to be White Europeans?
I'm not the one having trouble differentiating here. The initial claim is that Jews are over-represented in certain fields. I'm countering that claim by stating that there is no discernible evidence that any of the people in those fields are Jewish and, based on all available evidence, they're more than likely to be white people who are simply pretending to in Jewish in order to take advantage of societal advantages given to minorities, of which Jews are one.
Had you not gone so far off the rails with pointless nitpicking, you'd have no trouble.
It most certainly does have an effect. Again, the claim is that Jews are over-represented despite being a minority. If the majority were Jews, this would not be an issue at all, AKA moot.
"Again, the claim I'm disputing is that Jews are over-represented in certain areas. "Over-representation" means that they make up a larger proportion of the population of these areas relative to the proportion of the general population they account for, aka they're a minority."
Is 60% a minority?
The fact that over-representation "by and large" or "in most cases" references minorities, because that's how percentages work, means absolutely nothing besides that there actually are cases where it's not referencing minorities; not that any of this even has any relevance to the hypothetical thing we're discussing.
Is there an echo in here? Again, who said 60% was a minority? Again, the point is that "over-representation" is by and large referencing minorities.
Correct. An example of dismissal that doesn't feature dismissal would be objectively and inarguably useless.
And nowhere did I feature such. Therefore your claims as to their usefulness aren't up for debate. They are an empty set as far as this discussion is concerned.
Just pointless.
Unless you meant the statement that "not liking" directly implies you've tasted the food before, in which case yeah it's wrong.
What else would "not liking" mean? Again, how can one claim to "not like" something one has not experienced? Are you conflating "not liking" with "not wanting to do"?
What "entire/single statement"? They were all completely separate examples, nothing to do with each other. No "answering the question" or anything. Were you not aware?
When did I deny that there were completely separate examples? I said "statement", as in "section of your post relevant to my response". A statement is not limited to a single sentence, phrase, word, or example.
If the trope in question is that the majority of the US population, or at least the people who historically immigrated here, are actually Jews pretending to be White Europeans, then yeah you're most definitely gonna have to bring me up to speed, 'cause I got nothing on that front.
It isn't. Refer to earlier in this post for the trope.
"I'm presenting a hypothetical alternative option to the claim that most of the people who historically immigrated here were White Europeans; instead they were Jews pretending to be White Europeans"
And I responded to that by stating that, were that the case, the entire discussion would be moot. No one would care about a minority Jewish population being over-represented in certain fields because there would be no minority Jewish population.
The point of process of elimination being to end up with an actual result.
And the actual result would be that, in light of a lack of DNA evidence, the historical majority population of the US would be of white European ancestry given that they mostly present phenotypes commonly associated with those of white European genetics.
Again, process of elimination. They have pale skin, so you can't really make much of an argument for Africans, Pacific Islanders, or many Middle Eastern/Central Asian groups. They have round, wide eyes, so that eliminates East Asians. Their hair color ranges from dark brown to blonde to red, so that effectively eliminates the various indigenous American groups.
Hopefully never, because that would be an exceedingly silly thing to think.
It would be. Maybe I didn't elucidate my point on that topic properly. Skepticism or presenting an alternative opinion without basis is worthless.
Are you disputing your own statement that Jews and White Europeans have a lack of obvious phenotypical differences?
That isn't what I stated. But again, since you seem to not be particularly up to speed on this whole idea:
The theory is that Jews immigrated to Europe as part of their diaspora. We have limited evidence of this based on historical records. Over time, some Jews did intermix with the white European population despite the general Jewish religious/cultural aversion to it.
Now, in more modern times, many of these supposed part Jewish, part white European people are supposedly over-represented in certain areas. You'll see theories about the Rothschilds and international banking, various globalist conspiracies, supposed Jewish over-representation in Communist and other socialist movements, academia, etc.
My contention is that, in light of recent advances in technology, why do these tropes persist? Some of these people claim that they're Jewish, despite not practicing the religious aspect of Jewish culture, which casts at least some doubt on the claim. Oftentimes the claims that they're Jewish are made by their detractors as well, further obscuring the truth. They certainly don't outwardly appear Jewish, especially when some of the common associated physical traits (i.e. the big, bulbous/hooked noses) aren't really supported as being actual genetic traits of Jews.
Now, since we are ostensibly aware of previous intermixing and that we have societal favoritism towards non-whites, would it not be profitable for whites to claim Jewish heritage in order to take advantage of said societal favoritism?
I specifically reference "left wing" because they have cultivated an ideology that is very receptive to simple claims of identity with little scrutiny, so it would be easier to pass yourself off. Hence the examples of Elizabeth Warren and Shaun King, both of whom have built themselves up on false (or likely false) claims of minority heritage. Both are also considered "left wing" by American standards.
We can look at other minorities as well, such as transsexuals. How do I differentiate between someone who genuinely suffers from some kind of gender dysphoria/body dysmorphia vs. some pervert who simply claims to be transgender in order to peek into the women's bathroom? There are those on the left who would simply take the person at their word, while those on the right would look at someone who is obviously male-presenting and say "Yeah no, that's a man who's trying to be a peeping tom."
So when I said you provided those examples, why did you reply with: "No, I listed the stereotypical fields that people claim Jews are over-represented in"? That would seem to me like you're saying it is mutually exclusive. Particularly the "No" part.
The "no" was in reference to you claiming that I believed that there were certain advantages that identifying as Jewish gave to people looking to enter those fields.
What does that have to do with illustrating what supposed objectivity there is in the standard of evidence a person accepts? You made the claim that this acceptable standard is subjective "only to a degree". Why are you trying to demand I provide an "alternative" when you've yet to succeed in justifying your dispute of my first claim?
What do you mean "what does that have to do with" etc etc? Again, how else do I go about providing evidence of the ancestry of people long dead and decayed?
Or I want more information because I want more information.
And you want more information because you lack understanding, and lacking understanding leads to doubt.
That does not address it, not just because that doesn't make any sense, but because this is separate from the original argument and wouldn't be affected if the original were nullified anyway. It would still be sitting there, waiting.
That most certainly does address it. Again, all you did was restate the initial claim I'm arguing against. If these people in question are really actual Jews, then the entire reason for the trope and arguing against it is entirely moot.
Is 60% a minority?
"In most cases" over-representation references groups that make up less than half the population because that's how percentages and probability works. Smaller divisions mean more groups which means more potential for one of them to be over-represented.
Who said 60% was? Again, all you did was restate what I already said. No one claimed that 60% was a minority, but that doesn't negate the fact that over-representation by and large is referencing minorities.
You quoted my acknowledgement of it further down your post.
No I didn't. You continue to not acknowledge it even now.
The person who said "I don't believe in Christianity" knows about Christianity.
They know only as far as that it's a religion. That doesn't mean they "know" about it. There's a big difference between simply knowing a name and it's association with a broader concept and knowing the specific part of that broader concept said name is more closely associated with.
When the judgement itself is about the subject of "asking people something", no.
Who said the judgement was about the subject of "asking people something"? The judgement is about whether a belief is held by individuals who are part of a certain group. I do not need to ask anyone in order to hypothesize or make a judgement about said belief. I would ask them to see if my judgement was right or wrong.
Hence the hermit. But like I said, that wouldn't be very useful for an example specifically about someone dismissing something.
Usefulness isn't up for debate.
That's not my logic, that's English's logic. If you had tasted the food and didn't like it, the ideal word you'd want to use is "dislike". But a lot of words don't have that dedicated, active negation, so you often just use "not" instead and that leaves you with no passive negation, so when you want that you have to use a completely different statement like "I haven't tasted the food".
Obviously doesn't cause much problem in actual conversation, but it does in the world of logic where things need to be 1:1, direct questions needs direct answers, etc.
Your logic and English logic in this case are the same. Is my statement wrong? No, it isn't.
Because you said: "This statement doesn't dismiss the possibility of the first in any way, it's just the speaker making a roundabout way of not answering the question." and it didn't make any sense.
Did I not quote your entire statement? I can make a single statement containing three different examples, can I not?
Is it a component of the initial claim? I'm presenting a hypothetical alternative option to the claim that most of the people who historically immigrated here were White Europeans; instead they were Jews pretending to be White Europeans (18).
I also find it interesting how you're now claiming you already addressed this answer despite the fact that you were previously just claiming over and over that I never answered in the first place.
It is, yes. Now I may have made a mistake in presuming your degree of familiarity with the trope in question.
I find it interesting that you have a problem with me doing the same thing you're doing. Like I said before, I thought your "alternative" was simply you repeating the initial argument. Even then, I still addressed it, three days ago infact.
It's applying to the historical immigration we were talking about. The claimed basis for reasoning that the modern population is majority White European.
Where do you think the modern population came from? Are you implying that they just appeared out of the aether?
Presumably something that hadn't already been covered all the way back when I first posed the claim; that's why I asked, I had no clue.
Although, it still doesn't resolve the issue of: "One claim, on its own, can simply just have no evidence and be eliminated. "I haven't heard any other ideas" isn't evidence obviously, and if there are others but they equally have no evidence, surely they'd all be eliminated too? Leaving you with nothing?"
Who said it was an issue? When did I say that "I haven't heard any ideas" is evidence? The point is that, while there is no explicit gene sequencing available for most individuals of these centuries-old populations, genes still control physical appearance, and geographical location can alter genes to express different physical traits. Therefore, you can extrapolate someone's general ancestry based on their appearance. Hence the process of elimination. As with the modern population, are you implying that these pale-skinned, European featured but not actually white European people just appeared out of the aether?
To the Jews that have relatively few phenotypical differences from White Europeans and had immigrated to and been living in White European societies in the centuries prior to European immigration to the Americas? No, I wouldn't think it does apply to them. I'm open to arguments though.
Why wouldn't it? We already know that Jews typically don't marry outside the faith nor do the proselyte. So logically that would mean that most of them would retain their Middle Eastern features despite living in areas outside the Middle East. Would their be some exceptions? Sure, but then that's where actual gene sequencing would come in.
At least you finally stuck to the topic instead of playing dumb and trying to nitpick minutiae.
So which one is it, were you answering what their actual motivation would be or talking about the stereotypes that people claimed?
Who said they have to be mutually exclusive and who said I claimed to know their actual motivation? All I did was provide examples, examples that also routinely come up as stereotypical areas where Jews are supposedly over-represented in.
No, there's not. And you can tell there isn't because you can't illustrate it, instead persistently deflecting to alternatives as if that has anything to do with the merit of the existing evidence. Can you explain what that has to do with the subjectivity/objectivity of acceptable standards of evidence?
Elizabeth Warren is already a proven liar, but when she starts saying things that align with your currently-held notions, all of a sudden it's trustworthy and can be taken at face value? This is called confirmation bias.
There most certainly is. How else does one go about providing evidence for such? That isn't deflecting, that is using what information is available from the time. Demanding that you provide an alternative isn't deflecting either. If you can't provide an alternative, all you're doing is being skeptical purely for the sake of being such. You have no basis in it.
If you want more information. The second statement was "How do you know?", by the way.
And you want more information because you dispute the claim. If you didn't dispute the claim, you wouldn't need more information.
Meaning you have no evidence. I have already made my "good faith case", numerous times: Jews pretending to be White Europeans. You've had ample opportunities to tackle it, but for some reason you still haven't.
Yet I have, as I already pointed out. I already addressed the fact that, if they were Jews pretending to be white Europeans, then it would render the entire original argument (that Jews were over-represented) moot. The original argument already essentially makes that assertion anyway, why would I need to re-address it separately? All you've done is repeat the original.
If a group makes up 60% of the general population but 90% of a specific field, are they over-represented in that field?
Does that not fit what I said? Do I need to hold your hand through that too? Typically speaking though, that isn't the case with Jews or supposed "Jews". In most cases, over-representation is referencing groups that make up less than half of the general population.
Of course it's not an actual claim or dispute, just a hypothetical alternative option for people to think about. We can flesh it out more, though, that'd probably help. Just to make things as clear as possible. Who are the specific persons in question?
There aren't necessarily any specific persons in question. The point is that the claim of "Jewish heritage" is made both in reference to groups of non-specific people as well as specific people.
I did a quick Ctrl+F in the thread for my answer to that question ("Jews pretending to be White Europeans") and it has been said 8 different times, not including this reply I'm typing right now. One or two of those times have been you yourself directly quoting it in your own post.
And I've addressed it more than once, something you keep refusing to acknowledge AKA dancing around.
Because firsthand knowledge means you have the most direct access to the information and don't have to weigh the credibility or trustworthiness of someone else. Whereas secondhand knowledge is often able to be far greater in volume and passed through more scrutiny.
It's the same thing that differentiates primary and secondary sources, which people learn about in elementary school.
And if I asked someone else, would that not be having to "weigh the credibility or trustworthiness of someone else"? There is no material difference in asking someone or reading something out of a book.
Lack of experience is simply lack of experience. I have lack of experience with theories about the beginnings of the Universe; this does not imply whatsoever that I doubt them.
You're having trouble separating passive from active.
When did I claim that lack of experience equated to doubt? I claimed that lacking experience and then asking stemmed from doubt. Those are two entirely different things. I ask because I doubt the veracity of. Doubt doesn't mean a belief in the opposite, it simply means a lack of belief.
"I caught a fish this big!"
"Did you?"
Even if I have zero experience regarding the specific fish, I still doubt the veracity of the claim, so I ask for more info. The person could then respond with "Yeah, here's the picture." or something like that, which I can then use to alter my initial sentiment.
You're having trouble comprehending a full sentence.
Well that particular sentence is, since he knows about Christianity. For him to not have any religious beliefs, that requires him to have not been convinced by any. I suppose you could envision a lifelong hermit or someone in some ultra-1984 kind of society where absolutely all religious thought had been eliminated. But there obviously wouldn't be anything to dismiss then
A B and C were each separate examples, by the way, in case A being a question was confusing.
He doesn't necessarily know about Christianity since Jesus is not present in Christianity only. He could be Muslim or Jewish, as both religions feature Jesus as well. You can not have religious beliefs simply due to a lack of exposure and thus a lack of development. If you've never been exposed to a particular religion in the first place, it would be rather difficult to become convinced by it. By your logic, I can claim that I don't like the taste of some food, despite having never tasted it. "Not liking" directly implies that I've tasted it before.
I'm aware they're separate examples, why would that change anything?
"Jews pretending to be White Europeans" (11)
Which I already addressed more than once, something you keep glossing over. Again, all you're doing is essentially repeating a component of the initial claim I'm arguing against.
I don't see how that's addressing it at all; you're just redirecting the conversation back to a completely different claim about the modern-day population.
Except the notion that Jews are pretending to be white does not apply to strictly the modern population. You'll find the phrase "white when convenient" or something similar in discussions involving this topic.
Oh, is that all? I thought that was already handled ages ago? "Is there a group of people with relatively few phenotypical differences from pale-skinned, European-featured individuals, who'd have come from the geographical regions called Britain, Italy, Germany, and Eastern Europe, all of which we've received substantial immigration from?"
The only thing is, you seem to have forgotten to include Jews in your process of elimination.
What else would it have been? What do you think it meant? Again, yes I don't have explicit DNA evidence. No gene sequence, etc. However, what do you think a "phenotype" is? It's the physical expression of genes. Now this is where the process of elimination comes in.
Does "the Middle East" not apply to Jews?
How is it mud-slinging? None of the articles made any kind of negative report and you failed to provide any kind of support for your claims of supposed loss of contract from competing organizations. Sounds more like you have an axe to grind but know you can't bring up any kind of legitimate arguments.
"Mud-slinging" seems to be a grossly inaccurate statement about the articles written about the company in said paper.
Because saying "The same ones often cited by those pitching the Jewish influence trope" is redundant if that's what you were talking about the entire time.
I did not ask about the Jewish influence trope, I asked about the actual motivation someone would have to pretend they're Jewish.
Again, you asked, I answered. Not sure what else you were expecting. What do you think the motivation would be? You quite literally answered the question yourself very early on, but keep acting otherwise.
There is no degree. "Someone's word" is not any fundamentally different from a DNA test. Did you yourself conduct the DNA test on Elizabeth Warren, or did you simply read a report about it? If you conducted it yourself, were you also the one that assembled all the genetic reference information you used to determine what her genes indicate she is, or did you use existing information from others and simply take their word for it?
There most certainly is a degree. Again, who else would they be? Someone's word is fundamentally different from a DNA test. She released the info herself, so why would she all of a sudden tell the opposite story? Why would she then go on to apologize to the Cherokee Nation?
The second statement is a question. It expresses a desire to know why the other person believes his statement is true.
A question that would go unasked if the claim was not under dispute. If you didn't think something was untrue, why else would you ask if it was true or not?
"It's more of a thought experiment than a contention, don't worry."
(I said that because the main thing was just that you have no evidence the majority of the US population is of White European ancestry, which we appear to have come to an agreement on.)
"The thought experiment is that there are Jews pretending to be White Europeans."
It's strange, because it seemed like you did acknowledge me saying this, you talked about Jews immigrating to Europe prior to Europeans immigrating to the Americas and such. But you didn't really go anywhere with that and just went back to asking "Who else would they be?" over and over as if I never answered.
I said I have no DNA evidence, but again, who else would they be? I ask over and over because you seem unable or unwilling to answer. Thought experiments are only useful if made in good faith, so what's your good faith case for questioning the background of hundreds of thousands of people from ostensibly white European areas migrating to the US and setting up societies that were more or less identical to white European societies?
It isn't strange at all. Again, the claim I'm disputing is that Jews are over-represented in certain areas. "Over-representation" means that they make up a larger proportion of the population of these areas relative to the proportion of the general population they account for, aka they're a minority. So, if they're a minority, that must mean that there's a majority. This entire trope also presumes that the majority of the US population is of white European descent.
So, with that in mind, I dispute the claim by offering an alternative identity. Since no DNA evidence is present and since the general claim is only backed up by either the specific persons in question saying so or third parties saying so, I challenge the claim by stating that these people are actually self-hating whites. They look more or less the same and have ancestry that is more or less the same.
The difference with your thought experiment is that you're making a half argument. You aren't presenting any kind of counter. That is why I keep asking "Who else are they?", a question you keep dancing around.
Definitely you could, yeah. It would be secondhand knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean it's less insightful or accurate. Why?
Why would it matter if it was secondhand or not? How is that any different than talking to someone about it? Again, why would I need to talk to someone in order to make a judgement, as you claimed?
I understand argumentative logic isn't something that comes to people "intuitively", so it's fine.
A: "How do you know Jesus will really save us?"
This is skepticism/doubt if the person isn't already convinced, or it can be just benign questioning/curiosity. Either way, he's prompting for more evidence of the claim.
B: "I don't believe in Christianity, because I have no religious beliefs."
This is dismissal. The evidence he's seen for Christianity (and for other religions) doesn't meet his standards, so he simply doesn't adopt it.
C: "I believe Christianity is wrong. Jesus was not the messiah, just a false prophet"
This is dispute. The evidence he's seen for a claim against Christianity meets his standards, so he's adopting that instead.
Curiosity stems from doubt, either due to a lack of experience and the desire to fix said lack, or from having a conflicting belief.
Also the sentence "I don't believe in Christianity, because I have no religious beliefs." isn't necessarily based on evidence the person has seen, that's just simply a declaration that they have no religious beliefs. This statement doesn't dismiss the possibility of the first in any way, it's just the speaker making a roundabout way of not answering the question.
In other words, hearsay and anecdotes. Not even just "They're white because they say they are" but "They set sail from X because they said they did" as well, though that doesn't really matter regardless.
That goes back to the question you keep not answering: Who else would they be?
Not at all. Even though, again, I did. Multiple times. And you quoted it in your post before this one. ("The thought experiment is that there are Jews pretending to be White Europeans.")
What process of elimination is there? One claim, on its own, can simply just have no evidence and be eliminated. "I haven't heard any other ideas" isn't evidence obviously, and if there are others but they equally have no evidence, surely they'd all be eliminated too? Leaving you with nothing?
I assumed all you were doing was repeating my claim, considering how long it took you to actually answer. Funny how I already addressed that as well. If all of these pale-skinned, European featured people were actually all Jews pretending to be white, then that utterly disproves the entire "Jews are over-represented" claim in the first place.
What process of elimination is there? One claim, on its own, can simply just have no evidence and be eliminated. "I haven't heard any other ideas" isn't evidence obviously, and if there are others but they equally have no evidence, surely they'd all be eliminated too? Leaving you with nothing?
"Who else are they? They don't have dark skin like black Africans, various Pacific Islanders, or Indians. They don't have slanted eyes or slightly yellowed skin like many Orientals. Their skin and hair is fairer than those from the Middle East or Central Asia. They all speak languages and have societies ostensibly associated with white Europeans."
That process of elimination.
Or she's just hyping it up for the camera. It's entirely focused on her. None of her viewers know what's going on around her. Can't really tell where she is other than some city, at least based on the tallish building behind her.
"Hay guiz I was totally stuck in a Drumpf rally give me sympathy!"
So after I asked what the motivation is for pretending to be Jewish, and you said access to various left-wing circles of power and influence, and I asked which left-wing circles of power and influence, you were being redundant when you said: "The same ones often cited by those pitching the Jewish influence trope"? Because the Jewish influence trope is what you were talking about the entire time, i.e. you were never saying there actually is a motivation for pretending to be Jewish, just the stereotype that there is?
How am I being redundant? You asked and I answered. It's as simple as that.
It doesn't require that at all. Acceptable standard of evidence is subjective. Doubting and questioning is just a way for someone to try and elicit desired evidence to meet their own standard. I'm not required to respond or support anything if I'm saying the Earth is spherical and you're questioning that because the only evidence you'll accept is to be able to distinguish the curve of the horizon from sea level.
That's your business, it doesn't affect my claim in the slightest. But if you put forward your own claim that the Earth is actually flat, then my claim would be in dispute and we could try to figure out which one is true.
It is subjective, but only to a degree. Someone's word is not acceptable no matter how you try to slice it in this case. You can repeat it over and over. You can have a thousand people repeating it over and over, but the statement is no more or less proven than when you started.
This is known as "being skeptical".
And skepticism is disputing a claim.
"X is true."
"How do you know?"
The second statement is a direct challenge to the veracity of the first statement. That is known as "a dispute".
You said you didn't have evidence, and that's the statement I attributed to you. The negation part is important.
So again, what's your point?
White Europeans pretending to be Jews? And they migrated from areas that were claimed (with no evidence) to be populated by Jews you mean.
What areas, out of curiosity? We're talking about a potential timeframe of easily 1,500 years or more. That's an awful lot of generations to keep track of.
You're attempting to dispute the general claim that the majority of the US population is white European. Sure, we don't have DNA evidence, but again, who else would they be? Who are the pale-skinned, European featured people from geographical areas such as "England" or "Germany" or other places within the larger geographical area known as "Europe" if not white Europeans?
I most certainly did not. Just a direct quote would be more helpful, I don't know what you want me to look at there.
Screenshot shows that you did.
"Why would that mean said issue doesn't fall under the ideology I'm presenting? You'd have to presume that all Jews are leftist, which as far as can be seen isn't factual."
https://thedonald.win/p/HrTbZm4Z/x/c/199hghwjyK
So again, where did I say that we needed to presume that all Jews were leftists? I said we'd need to in order for your statement to be true, not in general. Those two aren't the same.
How should I know? That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. You're the one who said they support your claim that people in left-wing circles of power and influence don't typically scrutinize. So, does that include Jews?
The willingness of whites to claim minority heritage to gain status isn't relevant. It was already established, near the very beginning of the discussion.
If you're trying to figure that out, why are you wasting time asking me instead of Jews? Again, you keep saying that you're attempting to understand something, but for some strange reason you're awfully hesitant to ask the group in question.
The willingness of whites to claim minority heritage to gain status isn't relevant. It was already established, near the very beginning of the discussion.
Clearly it is relevant as that is the entire crux of the argument. What else are you arguing against?
Judgments require some sort of preexisting knowledge to work from. Having had conversations oneself would be the most logical if the judgement is about having conversations. That's to say, if it's an honest judgement and not a baseless, arbitrary one.
And pre-existing knowledge does not necessarily require conversing with anyone. Can I not read a book, gain knowledge from said book, and then use said knowledge to form a judgement regarding something related to the material found in said book?
I can read a book about geology, correct? In said book, would it not be likely that I'd come across material related to volcanism and molten lava? Would it not be likely that, within said material, there would be a reference to the temperature of molten lava? Given that temperature, would I then not be able to form a judgement that sticking my hand in molten lava is likely a bad idea? Now tell me, why would I need to converse with a geologist (or anyone else for that matter) in order to come to this conclusion?
I did, you just quoted it.
Why wouldn't it be applicable to reality?
That is an expression of skepticism. Or just dismissal, if you like.
And skepticism is dispute.
Skepticism: "How do you know?"
Dismissal: "That isn't true."
Both dispute the claim, but a dismissal puts forth a statement of fact that is the direct opposite of the original claim.
What else is it based on? Hearsay, anecdotes, questionnaires, they are white because they say they are, their ancestors were white because they said they were, etc.
I don't have to supply anything (even though I did), the fact that you have no evidence they're white stands on its own and wouldn't be any more or less true even if I showed you a ten hour documentary precisely detailing how they're actually aliens from a lost civilization buried under Antarctica.
Records of voyages with starting areas that are ostensibly populated by white Europeans, the utter lack of evidence presented by you that they're from anywhere else. It's almost as if the process of elimination is a thing.
You absolutely do have to supply something. Again, who else would they be if not white Europeans? Why would they be aliens from Antarctica?
At this point you're simply being disingenuous, or you're not just familiar with the trope (which I highly doubt at this point).
Because it was vague and didn't address what was asked. You listed some of the left-wing circles of power and influence which pretending to be Jewish can give you access to as: Hollywood, banking, business, globalist agendas, and academia. I asked why pretending to be Jewish gives you access to those.
No, I listed the stereotypical fields that people claim Jews are over-represented in. Nowhere did I say that pretending to be Jewish would give someone specific access to those. Again, I never stated that claiming specific minority heritage gave access to specific areas.
Dispute is argument. Disagreement. Doubting and questioning is simply skepticism, as I said. Any claim can have that, they can only have dispute when something contrary is put forward. Because things either are or they aren't.
Doubting and question is used to dispute because it requires that one respond and support.
"Jews are over-represented in X"
"Where's the evidence?"
That is a direct disputation of the claim because it challenges it based on lack of supporting evidence.
It's me attributing to you your own admission that you do not have evidence otherwise.
So again, when did I claim to have evidence?
We have hearsay and anecdotes of people claiming they're Jewish, you mean?
Who else would they be? They migrated from areas ostensibly populated by Jews.
I have never asked you if you've asked Jews anything.
You most certainly did. You asked if I asked how Jews feel about non-Jews impersonating them. Here's a screenshot:
You did.
When? I asked why you're presuming such. Nowhere did I state that we needed to.
Well, you weren't actually claiming that; It was only hypothetical, presenting people an alternate option, as you suggested, right? Though even if it were a real claim, a lack of evidence presented from one side does not by any means support the opposing side.
But are we not still talking about the majority population of the US which you claimed was white, with no evidence? The thought experiment is that there are Jews pretending to be White Europeans.
When did I have no evidence proving that the majority of the US population was white? Again, who else would they be? The census shows such. Historical records show such. Sure, there's no DNA evidence, but that brings us back around to the question of "Who else would they be?"
The willingness of whites to claim minority heritage to gain status isn't relevant to whether said actual minorities care about them doing it. Given the fact that Native Americans and blacks themselves have quite different ways of thinking when it comes to their own identity groups, I'm not convinced their examples support anything about what Jews think.
So? Why would their examples support anything about what Jews think? Why would that even matter? You're either simply not following, or trying to derail with disingenuous argumentation. All they are are examples of whites claiming minority heritage in order to gain status.
Because you were able to make the judgement that I haven't.
Why would making a judgement require conversation at all?
But is it a very useful hypothetical if it wouldn't actually be applicable in reality?
Who said it wasn't applicable in reality? Again, you're either not following at all, or are being disingenuous.
The claim is that Jews are over-represented in certain areas. The counter is that no proof has been given that they are Jews at all outside of simple anecdotes.
The evidence supporting that the majority of the US is white is not based on simple anecdotes. Again, in order for that to be valid, you'd have to supply an alternative identity, which you haven't.
Yep, but that's very loose, shaky wording in response to a very straightforward "Yes" or "No" question that was explicitly about equal access to Hollywood, banking, and business. That along with your later defensive question of: "When did I say that non-white groups don't have different advantages in certain circles?" left it pretty unclear, so I was just making sure I had it right.
How is it "loose, shaky wording"? You're asking about things I never said. Not once did I claim that being black or Native American gave access to anything specific, so why would I answer with a simple "Yes" or "No" when it requires more nuance than that? You're presenting two options to a question that has more than two answers, with the third being "It could be", which is what I answered.
How is me asking you to show where I made a statement "defensive"? You keep attributing specific statements to me that I never made, so why shouldn't I ask for clarification or ask where you saw me make such a statement?
Well that wouldn't be a dispute of the claim at all, that would just be skepticism or dismissal due to it not meeting your standard for evidence. Disputing it would mean making a counter-claim, e.g. "It's not true that Jews are over-represented" or "Jews can't be over-represented, because x".
But, as you admitted, you don't have any more evidence than the original claim, and all this is apparently just about being able to entertain the opposite possibilities. Hopefully by this point it's obvious I'm all ears?
It is a direct dispute. The claim is "Jews are over-represented". I dispute that by asking "How do you know that they're Jewish?" It directly addresses the claim by casting into doubt it's very basis, that being the ethnicity of the people in question.
When did I claim I had evidence otherwise? Again, that's you attributing things to me that I never said. Again, what made you think it was anything but simply presenting an alternative potion? I was asked to defend my reasoning behind the alternative option, and here I am.
Is there a group of people with relatively few phenotypical differences from pale-skinned, European-featured individuals, who'd have come from the geographical regions called Britain, Italy, Germany, and Eastern Europe, all of which we've received substantial immigration from? It's more of a thought experiment than a contention, don't worry.
That's the trick, isn't it? We have historical records detailing Jewish immigration to Europe during the centuries prior to European immigration to the Americas. We know that Jews typically shun marriages outside the faith and proselytizing, but we can't assume that it never happened. The claim is that "Jews", including those with partial European ancestry, are over-represented. Because of their partial European ancestry, the phenotypical differences become less obvious. We see that in ostensibly white Americans who have partial Native American ancestry.
So again, who else would they be? I already answered that question in my original claim, that being these "Jews" are actually self-hating white leftists. I am supported in this claim by the continued refusal (as well as the disingenuous or even outright hostile reactions) to present evidence. If you say you caught a fish far exceeding usual size averages for the species, but continue to make excuses as to why you don't have or are unwilling to present evidence of said fish, then one must conclude that you never caught the fish in the first place.
Why would we need to presume all Jews are leftists? True, it wouldn't necessarily need to change, I can't speak for anyone but myself as far as only talking about leftists goes.
Who said we needed to presume that all Jews are leftists? You started out by asking if I had asked Jews if they had issues with non-Jews claiming Jewish heritage in order to get into left-wing circles. Why would they only be concerned with left-wing circles?
Because you made the claim that the people in left-wing circles of power and influence don't typically scrutinize much, so I'm clarifying whether that includes the ones that are Jews. Since that's the main subject here, not BLM or LGBT loons.
I'd assume you'd know, or at least have some kind of insight, because you've talked to Jews about it. Which would be the reason you got the impression I haven't.
I am supported in that claim by the fact that Elizabeth Warren was able to keep up the Native American heritage claim for decades and that both Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal claimed black African heritage. They are proof that whites are willing to claim minority heritage to gain status.
Now sure, do I have specific examples of a white person explicitly claiming Jewish heritage in order to gain status? Not really, no. That goes back to the double standard. It's difficult to gain traction on that front when bringing up the idea is met with disingenuous argumentation and hostile reaction.
I do have examples of fabricated Holocaust survivor stories, presumably done to gain some kind of social clout:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/24/holocaust-survivor-lied-joseph-hirt-auschwitz
Here's a white man who wanted to convert to Judaism but was denied. He then spray-painted swastikas all over his house and told cops he was Jewish.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-york-man-admits-painting-swastikas-on-his-own-home/
Why would you assume that I've talked to Jews about it at all? Why would that be necessary? Do I need to talk to geologists in order to hypothesize about the hardness of various rock types?
Which half of your argument do you mean?
The half where I only ever presented this as a hypothetical.
Nowhere near 90% of the topic has been about anything but the idea that there's a distinct lack of evidence supporting the "Jews are over-represented" idea. Where did I claim anything but? Nowhere did I claim that claiming Native American heritage gives someone easier access to banking. In fact, I said earlier on that there isn't necessarily any specific thing that claiming a certain heritage gives easier access to. You're either being disingenuous about an example, or simply haven't been following very well. Native American is just an example we have of a minority identity being used to attain a higher status.
I have as much evidence supporting my claim as it's opposite. Again, that's the point. If you're willing to believe a claim made without evidence, there's no logical reason why you shouldn't be able to entertain the idea that the opposite could be true instead. Based on the reactions I'm getting, that apparently is not the case. Guess some people can't handle their bias being challenged.
The claim I'm disputing is that Jews, despite making up only a small portion of the US population, are over-represented in certain fields. The challenge is that there's no evidence beyond hearsay and anecdotes that any of these people are Jewish.
Why wouldn't "logical presumptions" be evidence? The only way the "over-representation" claim works is if Jews are a minority. Again, who else would a bunch of pale-skinned, European-featured individuals from a geographical region called "England" be other than English? Sure, they could be Scottish, or Irish, or Danish, or French, or German, etc., but all of those groups are still pale-skinned and European-featured. Again, who else would they be? You're trying to make a contention with a half-formed argument.
Who said it would "suddenly change"? Again, why are you asking me if someone else cares about something? Why would I know and why would my opinion matter? Benign or not, it really isn't relevant to the topic. Whether I think they care or whether they care is immaterial to the point. Would not me asking you the same question be just as benign?
The only way you can come to the conclusion that I'm "engaging in exactly the same type of selective skepticism" would be if you ignored half of the argument.
I'm the idiot? You're the one sperging out that your narrative is being challenged that you can't respond to it with anything more substantial than flak. For all the flak you're giving me, I must be right over the target.
Many of the people who pitched the Russian hoax didn't like Trump before the hoax came up. The gas lightning reinforced a pre-existing bias, but for many all the Russia hoax did was give them a specific concept to latch onto. Now I'd certainly agree that it gaslit fence-sitters or "moderate" Dems since it served as confirmation bias.
Implying that they typically wouldn't believe it otherwise. 2016 basically proved that there's at least a good-sized chunk of the American population that will believe anything that doesn't require them to exercise a bit of introspection. While they may not have specifically believed that the Biden emails are a Russian hoax, they were already looking for a target.
Would you be registered before or after residency?