We're talking past each other. I understand your argument, and am saying that it's a poor one. You either do not understand why, which at this point must be my

We're talking past each other. I understand your argument, and am saying that it's a poor one. You either do not understand why, which at this point must be my own fault, or do not care. I won't post further in this thread, as it's clearly not going anywhere. > You apparently know the origin is from Yiddish Theater. That's clearly what I was referring to. The problem, again, is that you weren't referring to it. You were labeling a character "Yiddish". This may seem to you like hair-splitting, but I assure you it's not. In English usage, the word Yiddish does not refer to a person. Full stop. The Yiddish Theater is so-called because it's the Yiddish-Language Theater, not because it's extra jew-ey. But look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't your coinage. Do you have a reference establishing "The Yiddish Brooklynite" as a common or accepted usage in the way you're deploying it? Maybe a book or article that uses the term to describe Bugs Bunny? Please post, I'm perfectly happy to be the schlimazel here. > As far as Rosie goes, take it up with the scholarship. For example Sure, fine. Considering she's a combo maid and maternal figure in a midcentury sitcom you can probably read aspects of Rosie that way. But again you're missing the point, which isn't that you were necessarily wrong. It's that your response to being challenged wasn't to engage with what the other poster was saying, or to argue your point, or even, as here, to type "jetsons mammy" into google scholar and link the first article that comes up. It was to dismiss the comment and continue bloviating in a different direction. This was also in substance the character of your response to me. It's an approach to discussion calibrated to earn points on HN, but not one, in my experience, that shows the interest or capacity to hear something from a different perspective.