I liked her in the movies but not on this show. About time someone shut her up. LOL
Whoopi Goldberg suspended from 'The View' over Holocaust comments (msn.com)
Whoopi Goldberg suspended from 'The View' over Holocaust comments (msn.com)
Whoopi Goldberg suspended from 'The View' over Holocaust comments
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
Only suspended for two weeks.
She is back a Guinan on Star Trek Picard and the middle Eastern Jewish genes in European Jews are so dilute she's not entirely wrong but it was insensitive. It would be like the ET right saying Rwanda was an argument between black people. Which they kind of do regularly enough.
She said the holocaust was not about race. About as dumb as they come.
When you are 4'11" and pushing 250lbs you need to ask yourself certain questions.
on one hand, she's kinda right, on the other, the Nazis didn't see it that way and most definitely saw racial differences based on ethnicity. There are arguments Ashkenazis are different enough due to their propensity not to marry outside their group, but don't know if these hold much water. I'd reckon gypsies maybe like that as well.
No argument that Ashkenazis have some group differences but its way too little to call them a race. As with Gypsies, Irish/English "travellers" or even where I live, Paisa people in Colombia have a very distinct look. The women considered among the most beautiful in the world but you would never go so far as to call them a race. This widespread 'look' happened in just a couple of centuries, three at the very most for Paisa people.
Hitler didn't have the advantage of gene mapping and he was not interested, he just wanted an external other to justify his grip on power. When you live in a European city where there are many Jews telling most Ashkenazi from the general populace is often hard to impossible unless they are in traditional garb and hairstyle.
These extreme liberals are a very vile and intolerant bunch. You can see what privilege is like. Whoopi Goldberg got a 2 week suspension which is a joke. Billy Bush got fired for his comments when he interviewed President Donald Trump. Roseanne Barr also, got fired for her comments. Andrew Cuomo did not even get charged for nursing home deaths due to his policies handling the Corona Virus pandemic. There is a double standard by extreme liberals in Hollywood, in Academia, in Politics, etc. Even Bill Clinton was not even investigated for numerous, serious allegations of sexual misconduct, including rape. Hillary Clinton was exonerated by James Comey even before he interviewed her for show, regarding her destroying over 30,000 e-mails plus the unsecured server? All no good, privileged extreme liberal hypocrites, just like our resident ET trolls.
First -- it's sad that you pollute every thread with anti-vax Covid-denier nonsense -- even those threads where it is clearly off-topic.
No -- the American Heart Association was not censored for a warning about the Covid vaccine. One of their members published a study abstract in the AHA journal which contained non-factual information about heart inflammation and Covid vaccines. The AHA stamped the paper with an "Expression of Concern" after the medical community weighed in.
New Covid-19 Vaccine, Myocarditis Claims From Questionable Abstract In American Heart Association Journal
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...an-heart-association-journal/?sh=25c530cf7a63
A research abstract that was published on November 8 in the medical journal Circulation has gotten a fair amount of circulation on social media.The abstract made a pretty dramatic claim: “mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation” in the heart, which “may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.” However, there has been some drama around this abstract and its being short on a little thing called “evidence” to support such claims. In fact, on November 24, an American Heart Association committee added an “Expression of Concern” warning due to “potential errors in the abstract.”
Have such potential errors stopped those on social media from disseminating the abstract and making even more unsupported claims about Covid-19 vaccines? In a word, no. In two words, heck no. In 12 words, why let science and facts get in the way of making claims? For example, the following tweet shared the abstract while incorrectly claiming that what was said in the abstract constituted an American Heart Association (AHA) warning:
Umm, just because a research abstract was published in Circulation, an AHA journal, doesn’t necessary mean that the abstract’s contents represent the position of the AHA. That would be a little like saying that the song “WAP” represents the position of Spotify. Unless an abstract said that it represents the position of the AHA, whatever is in the abstract is not an AHA warning. It would be more accurate to call this a Gundry warning. That’s because Steven R. Gundry, MD, was the one and only author of the abstract.
Who is Gundry? Well, you can say, “aha, he’s not the AHA.” A bio on the Goop website describes Gundry as “the founder and director of the International Heart and Lung Institute as well as the Center for Restorative Medicine. He is the author ofThe Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in “Healthy” Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain,The Longevity Paradox: How to Die Young at a Ripe Old Age, and the upcomingThe Plant Paradox Family Cookbook.” In 2016, Gundry founded Gundry MD, which includes a wellness blog, a YouTube channel, and a company that sells supplements. So a Gundry warning is definitely not the same as an AHA warning.
Plus, a 319-word abstract research abstract is not the same thing as a peer-reviewed study published as a research article in a reputable scientific journal.Circulation is a very reputable scientific journal. But a research abstract for an AHA meeting is not the same as a research article in that journal. Just because you got a classified ad into a newspaper trying to sell your One Direction shrine doesn’t mean that you wrote an article about One Direction for that newspaper. Similarly, an abstract for a meeting alone usually doesn’t go through the same formal rigorous peer review that a published research article would.
Yet, that apparently hasn’t stopped anti-vaxxers from referring to “this abstract as a peer-reviewed paper in Circulation,” according to the following tweet from Tara C. Smith, PhD, a Professor of Epidemiology at the Kent State University College of Public Health:
(More at above url)
Last edited: