Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Stephen Jacob Smith

If 20% of lawyers are Jewish and you nominate 18 and none are Jewish, then the chance that that wasn’t random is 98%. If 30% Jewish, 99.8%. That doesn’t necessarily mean antisemitism, but it does suggest Mamdani was looking for something in nominees that Jewish lawyers didn’t have.

Ben K.

Another disgusting baseless Mamdani hit piece from Dana Rubinstein. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/27/n...

Обсуждение

6 прямых ответов · 9 сообщений

Показаны не все ответы

Публичный счётчик показывает 7, а источник передал 6. Остальные ответы могли быть удалены, скрыты или не выданы публично.

Muffin

How many Jewish lawyers do you think they should legally mandate sit on the panel?

Ответ для Muffin
Stephen Jacob Smith

Did you know that the Bluesky app automatically hides your replies and labels you as “rude”?

Ben Ross

I hope no one who has ever ascribed significance to a picture of an all-white group of Trump appointees is defending Mamdani here.

🟦

“but it does suggest Mamdani was looking for something in nominees that Jewish lawyers didn’t have.” -> that would be not being Jewish. 

Ответ для Ed Sea Doggy🍉
Faeelin

I mean as a New York lawyer I’d have to work to get a panel of 20 attorneys where none of them were Jewish, lmao.

Upzone New Jersey 🏗️

It's not bigotry, but the world view is Jews are just non-distinct whites.

Ответ для Upzone New Jersey 🏗️
Ben Ross

The statistical argument, which is a good one, is that if you treat Jews as non-distinct whites, it's very unlikely to get that result. Like when you get an 18-member committee in Mississippi that includes no Blacks. It might not be exclusion of Blacks, it might be exclusion of NAACP members.

Morgan

As my statistics teacher would say, "We can reject the hypothesis that he is selecting nominees randomly."