Russians have Tsars, just as Germans have Kaisers, just as many European languages have a word derived from Caesar.

Czar is a word used in English. Who are you to tell English speaking people that their word is wrong just because it sounds like another word when you probably have such a word in your language as well that you use to refer to something beyond Russian emperors?

Well if they were more appropriate, czar would not be the common word for such a position. And for the reasons you take issue with czar, that it has other meanings, also rules out all the words you suggested, moreso given the meanings of those words tend to be rigid; whereas czar is a word that exists because of flexible which we can understand through its etymological history.

>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.

It is 100% confirmation bias.

Your petty insults don't change that fact.

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.

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."

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.

As a retail person, I might suggest you won't be needing to visit the toothpaste section when the poor stocksperson finally snaps and bludgeons your face with that Betty Crocker icing.

DO NOT TRIGGER US DURING HOLIDAY SEASON FOR WE SHALL UNLEASH THE GREATEST WROTH UPON THEE. /s