3 ms·

It wasn't a list of Jews, it was a list of everyone from which Jews could be easily identified. The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose

It wasn't a list of Jews, it was a list of everyone from which Jews could be easily identified. The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. This is relevant to data collected by companies and governments today. Consider a list of children with their parent names and the parents' preferred pronouns. You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy.

thaumasiotes 8mo ago
> The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. How does that make the distinction important? The lesson to draw is "you shouldn't keep a list of Jews, whether you think you're doing it for good reasons or not". The list is a list regardless of whether you think calling it a list is fair in some abstract sense. > You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy. Well, you're almost right. Except of course that you do have a list of gays. That's why Grindr having Chinese ownership was seen as a national security risk.
- expedition32 8mo ago
  The Netherlands today is a secular country in which the government doesn't give a flying fuck about your religion or identity. But the situation in 1940 was very different: religion permeated every fabric of society. Mind you the government simply took over the job of record keeping from the churches, temples and synagogues. I am sure Jews today still keep lists about who is a Jew and so does every other religious denomination because such mundane information matters to them.
- magicalhippo 8mo ago
  > Except of course that you do have a list of gays. If you go to your kindergarten and tell them to stop keeping a list of gays they will look at you weird and most likely dismiss you as a nutjob. Because they don't have a list of gays, they just have a list of kids with their parents' names and pronouns. That's why I think it's important to keep the distinction rather than conflate the two like you want to.

thaumasiotes 8mo ago

> The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. How does that make the distinction important? The lesson to draw is "you shouldn't keep a list of Jews, whether you think you're doing it for good reasons or not". The list is a list regardless of whether you think calling it a list is fair in some abstract sense. > You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy. Well, you're almost right. Except of course that you do have a list of gays. That's why Grindr having Chinese ownership was seen as a national security risk.

expedition32 8mo ago
The Netherlands today is a secular country in which the government doesn't give a flying fuck about your religion or identity. But the situation in 1940 was very different: religion permeated every fabric of society. Mind you the government simply took over the job of record keeping from the churches, temples and synagogues. I am sure Jews today still keep lists about who is a Jew and so does every other religious denomination because such mundane information matters to them.
magicalhippo 8mo ago
> Except of course that you do have a list of gays. If you go to your kindergarten and tell them to stop keeping a list of gays they will look at you weird and most likely dismiss you as a nutjob. Because they don't have a list of gays, they just have a list of kids with their parents' names and pronouns. That's why I think it's important to keep the distinction rather than conflate the two like you want to.