Thanks!
I think "vorgeblich" has some more nuance, as it does not say the claim is necessarily wrong (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/vorgeblich). But like I said in the other sub-thread: he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job). It's still a different picture than one might imagine when hearing "German government officials are deciding whether you are jewish enough" (which you didn't write, but apparently was understood like that by other commenters).
Your reading is very generous to him.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.
Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.
It is not relevant that it is wrong.
If it's not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Yes, as I said: the "Jewishness" of the people should not matter when you're attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn't have said that.
Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.
Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a "Glory to the resistance" demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.
The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don't have to adhere to these regulations.
It's not a source for a quote if the quote does not show up in the link.
edit: the fact that this gets downvoted really says a lot about the quality of the discussion :D
People in this thread should say which country they are referring to. I somehow doubt that legal requirements and professional standards are the same everywhere.
Ctrl+F didn't turn up any results for your quote ("alleged"/"allegedly") , and I'm not going to read the whole article searching for what you might have meant instead.
Do you have sources?
If you were born in 1976 or earlier, your birthday is closer to the production of the Ford Model T than it is to today. Have a nice day :)
a whole new category of content, which is AI generated or AI summarized content or kind of existing content pulled together by AI in some way,
Good to know that they really have thought it through. Reminds me of the kind of user story our project manager writes.
Higher yes, significantly not necessarily.
OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That's not an attack.
And how is on the other hand "he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)" and "shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism," and "he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take" not an "attack" against the commissioner?
edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.