The whole article is quite funny, especially the lists of most used tankie words, or the branding of foreignpolicy as a left-wing news source.
Honestly I could have told them the history of Lemmygrad myself, no need for machine learning and data-driven APIs, you could just ask somebody lol. Can I get some of that 500k?
What if they've been here, asking all along, and we've been shoo-ing them off as libs?
Whoever the people are that got their comments published on page 33 and 34 deserve a special flair (does Lemmy have those?)
Also, it's so funny how the authors keep calling the Communist Party of China the CCP instead of the CPC. For table 10 they had to switch between these keywords because the tankies community is the only one that can get the acronym right LMAO
"That’s Isntreal and nah, we don’t endorse Israel." an example of a statement that proves we are evil
and did you not read the paper, us using the correct accronym just proves we are brainwashed by chinese propganda... by assertion
Oh yeah, we use the cHinESe gOveRnMenT's PrEFeRrEd nOmeNClaTurE, so we're misaligned. What a joke. It'd be like calling the USA the AUS and insisting that everyone who gets it right has been manipulated by the US government. Sorry, the SU government.
Fake news. You don’t see many people around here calling it the 中国共产党 now do you? :)
Good point we are all westerners using the preferred western CPC.
The funny thing is i can't read Chinese but this is one of the few expressions i have learned to recognize and know how to pronounce (still can't write it though, i need to practice that sometime). Guess that makes me "brainwashed by the CCP".
You mean brainwashed by the 中国共产党 right? /s
I’ve studied Japanese so it’s kind of cheating that it looks obvious to me what it’s supposed to mean without studying Chinese. Don’t ask me to pronounce it the Chinese way though :P
As an aside, it’s interesting to note the different simplifications:
Traditional Chinese: 中國共產黨 Japanese: 中国共産党 Simplified Chinese: 中国共产党
I almost appreciate the CCP/CPC thing, because it gives me a shorthand as to know whether the upcoming argument will have any merit or just be bullshit.
I still look at their actual argument on their merits, but 95% of the time it has gone exactly the way I expected.
Can someone please explain "...more Stalinist than Leninist" because from my years of experence being an ML this sentence is absolute gibberish
Second their citation for the Uyghur genocide, while I cannot read the book to find its sources, is written by someone who worked for 7 years is USAID for the former USSR "managing democracy, governance, and human rights programs" he is known for his "... comments on current events in the media related both to the situation of the Uyghur people in China ..." and is an open critic of the belt and road initive in his open seminars,
"We perform a set of quantitative analyses that reveal the relationship between tankies, other far-left communities, leftists, feminists, and capitalists." I feel I need no more explination, the bold was added by me
At this point I am less than a page in and I feel like I am reading too far into this but I am comitted to this and I will read and review this ... and likely reply to here... but this looks to be the dumbest acidemic paper I have ever read, ever, and trust me I have read some really stupid ones
Second their citation for the Uyghur genocide, while I cannot read the book to find its sources, is written by someone who worked for 7 years is USAID for the former USSR “managing democracy, governance, and human rights programs” he is known for his “… comments on current events in the media related both to the situation of the Uyghur people in China …” and is an open critic of the belt and road initive in his open seminars,
You can find the source on libgen. Here's the sources for the preface:
1 Mamatjan Juma and Alim Seytoff, ‘Xinjiang Authorities Sending Uyghurs to Work in China’s Factories, Despite Coronavirus Risks,’ Radio Free Asia (27 February 2020).
2 SCMP Reporters, ‘China Plans to Send Uygur Muslims from Xinjiang Re-Education Camps to Work in Other Parts of Country,’ South China Morning Post (2 May 2020).
3 Keegan Elmer, ‘China says it will ‘Normalise’ Xinjiang Camps as Beijing Continues Drive to Defend Policies in Mainly Muslim Region,’ South China Morning Post (9 December 2019).
4 Erkin, ‘Boarding Preschools For Uyghur Children “Clearly a Step Towards a Policy of Assimilation”: Expert,’ Radio Free Asia (6 May 2020).
5 Gulchehre Hoja, ‘Subsidies For Han Settlers “Engineering Demographics” in Uyghur-Majority Southern Xinjiang,’ Radio Free Asia (13 April 2020).
So... SCMP and RFA.
And the first ten sources for the introduction:
1 Emily Feng, ‘China Targets Muslim Uyghurs Studying Abroad,’ Financial Times (1 August 2017).
2 See Adrian Zenz and James Leibold, ‘Xinjiang’s Rapidly Evolving Security State,’ Jamestown Foundation China Brief (14 March 2017); Magha Rajagopalan, ‘This is What a 21st Century Police State Really Looks Like,’ Buzzfeed News (17 October 2017).
3 Adrian Zenz and James Leibold, ‘Chen Quanguo: The Strongman Behind Beijing’s Securitization Strategy in Tibet and Xinjiang,’ Jamestown Foundation China Brief (21 September 2017).
4 Nathan VanderKlippe, ‘Frontier Injustice: Inside China’s Campaign to “Re-educate” Uyghurs,’ The Globe and Mail (9 September 2017); HRW, ‘China: Free Xinjiang “Political Education” Detainees’ (10 September 2017); Eset Sulaiman, ‘China Runs Region-wide Re-education Camps in Xinjiang for Uyghurs and Other Muslims,’ RFA (11 September 2017).
5 Alexia Fernandez Campbell, ‘China’s Reeducation Camps are Beginning to Look Like Concentration Camps,’ Vox (24 October 2018).
6 See ‘Inside the Camps Where China Tries to Brainwash Muslims Until They Love the Party and Hate Their Own Culture,’ Associated Press (17 May 2018); David Stavrou, ‘A Million People Are Jailed at China’s Gulags. I Managed to Escape. Here’s What Really Goes on Inside,’ Haaretz (17 October 2019).
7 See Amie Ferris-Rotman, ‘Abortions, IUDs and Sexual Humiliation: Muslim Women who Fled China for Kazakhstan Recount Ordeals,’ Washington Post (5 October 2019); Eli Meixler, ‘“I Begged Them to Kill Me.” Uighur Woman Tells Congress of Torture in Chinese Internment Camps,’ TIME (30 November 2018); Ben Mauk, ‘Untold Stories from China’s Gulag State,’ The Believer (1 October 2019).
8 Shoret Hoshur ‘Nearly Half of Uyghurs in Xinjiang’s Hotan Targetted for Re-education Camps,’ RFA (9 October 2017).
9 Sean R. Roberts, ‘Fear and Loathing in Xinjiang: Ethnic Cleansing in the 21st Century,’ Fair Observer (17 December 2018).
10 See Zenz and Leibold, ‘Xinjiang’s Rapidly Evolving Security State.’
Zenz, RFA, and Financial Times.
Not exactly promising.
If i turned in something like this to my proff with those sorces, I would be down listed a grade minum. I cannot belive that passes as research.
There’s certainly an irony to academia being run by (mostly) liberals who would rightly scoff at any real research having such shoddy sourcing but those same types of libs blindly accepting CIA and it’s network of bullshit narratives.
Even from a selfish pro-US stance people should be wary of those who state such high standards for what is considered credible sourcing but throw that away as soon as it favors the way they’ve been told to perceive the world. “This confirm China bad! Sound good!” They’re compromising their ethics and morality of course but it makes you wonder what else is compromised if it all it took was a a shitty media narrative to convince them Xi is personally shooting Taiwanese civilians right now.
Yeah the rigor is only centered when it's convenient or empowering. My department has been begging scholars that are critical of China to become faculty for awhile. Although one of the professors is skeptical of criticisms of China that leave out the context of western crimes and the broader global system that China did not create, but the broader department and the university seems eager to get someone that is explicitly anti china in their research objectives.
To me it's hardly impossible to find things China is doing "wrong" around the world. But I am convinced there is a lot of contrived bullshit and misinformation and a lot of it does not stand up to scrutiny, but few actually criticize these narratives. The shit with Sri Lanka for exampleis repeated ad nauseum and its shoddy as hell imo.
Also Vox, a zionist cumrag, and some artsy cumrag that screams "CIA money"
Can someone please explain “…more Stalinist than Leninist” because from my years of experence being an ML this sentence is absolute gibberish
This is trotskyist political view, considering how much time they spent agitating, it was somewhat accepted by the radlib part of mainstream. Btw. it's telling how of entire ton of trotskist propaganda mainstream accepted exactly the anti-AES parts.
holy shit you weren't joking, if you ctrl+f lemmygrad we appear in it lmao
edit: I still can't believe this is real, which one of you wrote this paper??
no but it's the funniest thing, it was written by 2 randos from some backwater uni in new york state (not the city), and a third co-author from Cyprus (??? why), and published on arxiv.org which is:
a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 2,294,594 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv.
Meaning they found whoever would publish them without asking questions.
Like this thing says the word tankie 71 times, which is an average of 2.5 per page, of course they would not have been published anywhere else lol. If I was their uni honestly I would give these students a talking to because it would reflect really badly on my reputation to let them publish this drivel.
Best part is these mfs are prolly reading us shitposting about them now
don't say shitposting, you're gonna add an instance of severe toxicity
spoiler
Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting Shitposting
I can’t wait to tankie wall these anti-intellectual anti-tankie typie wall wall the wall facing tankie tankie shitposting gets the wall tankie… Xi good
Doing my part to get us number one for the next study
Tankie
Time to go for the SEVERE_TOXICITY high score:
Amerikkka is run by fascist Yankees, and Mayo Blinken is the Secretary of Legitimizing Imperial Conquest.
Actually, the authors of this are professors from that university, lmao.
They were even given some grants and awards.
Arxiv and similar services are mostly used in actual academic circles to publish pre-prints or just to get articles out there while they're still being reviewed by actual journals, so it's possible that this will be published in a journal at some point.
Many papers published as pre prints in arxiv never make it out of there, there's too much rubbish in the academic world, just like this article. And not only in the social sciences, I've seen plenty of bad papers in chemistry and biology there too.
ArXiv doesn't filter anything afaik (or maybe they have policy against really egregious stuff). If you take a peek at their mathematics section, any nutjob who think he's solved the collatz conjecture can export their microsoft word ramblings to PDF and publish it on ArXiv.
ArXiv does have value because journals overcharge authors for publishing, overcharge other researches for access to journals, hold strict opinions on what they will or will not publish or censor, among other complains. ArXiv levels the playing field a bit by being basically fancy PDF file hosting. Not every valuable piece of thought comes from a "prestigous university", and restricting access to knowledge is overall a bad thing.
lol, I never read papers anywhere else for my work. ArXiv may suck if you wanna go looking at random, but it's invaluable to be able to read the actual legit stuff in preprint form on there.
It actually has "tankie" 399 times or more than 10 times per page.
(An aside: I'm thoroughly impressed with the amount of uncoordinated, ad-hoc, impromptu -- and yet rigorous -- dunking and researching that is going on in this post)
We really owe it to the researcher for making themselves so easy to dunk on. My favorite to add to the list:
"there being stories of r/GenZedong users attacking Uyghurs and promoting violence against them in the press [ 27],"
which leads to this infamous source:
[27] Andrew R. Chow. 2022. Reddit failing to control hate speech on Global Forums: Mods. https://time.com/6121915/reddit-international-hate-speech/
Dunking on the Rushan Abbas AMA = attacking Uyghurs. Filter that narrative through enough reports and citations of articles citing reports that cite articles and you have the Truth™.
Best part is they'll eventually ban Genzedong, remove/scrub that reddit thread and random online haters (same variety making ridiculous claims about Lemmy's devs) will begin to claim the removed reddit sources actually were proof of actual genzedong users actually physically attacking Uyghurs.
It's almost inevitable with the game of telephone they're playing. Just launder something enough time through enough sources while being vague and generous with words and it magically becomes fact to everyone but super serious and honest academics (e.g. not the type who write this garbage) who really don't impact the discourse at all anyways as if one discovered it and wrote anything at all it'd probably be a 1-2line citation in some voluminous work mostly unrelated to the fact, a total aside that they researched it and found it false, which obviously will never be seen by anyone.
"Thus, tankie is now used to describe much more than the set of communists who supported specific events from the Soviet era. The term tankie now covers communists who support “actually existing socialist countries” (AES); especially those with a Stalinist or authoritarian leaning. Although there is not really a concrete definition, recent work by Petterson [ 94] provides a succinctdescription of tankie:
Tankies regard past and current socialist systems as legitimate attempts at creating communism, and thus have not distanced themselves from Stalin, China etc. "
Yes, well recognized, the term is vague and can mean everything or nothing. It does not make sense. There are people who see only the Soviet Union as a successful workers' revolution, but not the rest. For some, China represents revisionism, so does Vietnam, or North Korea, or Cuba, etc. I've met people who are all about Enver Hoxha, everything else is revisionism. That is such an enormous range of different views, yet they are all tankies. I've witnessed Trotskyites beeing called tankies because they are against NATO.
To work with such a stupid definition is absolute nonsense. I myself have been called a tankie often enough, because I keep pointing out that the term has no substance in historical and political discourse. I even never discussed something political. Pointing out, that this term is stupid is enough to be a tankie - my experience.
The Juche necromancers are trying their best, and that's all we can ask for.
I don’t know how anyone can say “tankie” with a straight face, let alone publish a research paper about the “tankie” phenomenon.
I can't believe they did this and then, by the looks of it, crowd-sourced a definition from reactionary corners of the fediverse. They're not giving western higher education a good name, are they?
The authors are not qualified to speak on this professionally seeing their degrees and expertise is in tech and computer science, not political science or philosophy.
Yes, this is also a point. They still attempt to speak on this topic, because the write, that this paper is a "data-driven understanding" of "left-wing extremism". Absolute stupid
This exactly. This article is nothing but brainworm-inducing propaganda masquerading as "academic research" to seem more authoritative and valid.
I took a look at the article and the authors. The senior author is a computer science guy focused on researching online harmful behavior.
It's quite telling that he has no humanities training whatsoever in his academic background. A CS guy doing humanities research without any training in humanities.
I myself fit the description of guy from a hard quantitative science background who delved into humanities and social sciences research. I'll honestly say to you: the only thing worse than a humanities researcher who eschew any type of quantitative research as "positivist reductionism" is a "hard science guy" who thinks he[1] doesn't have to give a shit to the work that was done by humanities researchers because "numbers will tell me everything I need to know".
[1] Masculine referents 100% intended because it's usually a guy.
I don't know if humanities could have salvaged some of this paper. They just make so many assumptions out of thin air and expect the reader to just go along with them, like this here:
The support of tankies for the hardline Soviet era extends to Russia’s current authoritarian regime’s actions.
This is a specific claim, that in other words says "tankies support the Soviet Union, and as such they support the Russian Federation". But no source accompanies this claim, no definitions either, and ultimately the next sentence contradicts this claim -- they started from the conclusion, the starting point being them wanting to prove "Acceptence [sic] of the Russian Narrative in Ukraine" (yes the typo was originally there).
But the two are two entirely different claims, it does not logically follow that support for the USSR means support of Russia in the war. They just gloss over that though and start talking about their "word pairs" as if that proved anything lol
This is divination for computer scientists.
I've never written a scientific paper before but I would be ashamed to actually put this out for my peers to review.
they where funded by the US government a little over half a million dollars
Half a million for this is both hilarious and sad. On the one hand that could have funded several researchers doing actual science for the public benefit so it's a tragedy, on the other they grifted half a million dollars for what isn't even 50k of work IMO. I mean this is stuff that random hobbyists do in their free time in about a month or less and post on subreddits about data visualization for free.
On the other hand money is not really an object when it comes to fighting the enemies of capital and empire so a small price to pay I'm sure. And better spent here (in their minds) than on researching actual hate groups and extremists like Nazis, channer-fash, alt-right, Qanon weirdos, etc which while it could be done to this caliber would obviously look a little lacking for the 500k considering there are private groups that do far better research on them and publish far better reports for far less money.
I will be honest, the work done here, in this thread is more than they did in the entire paper. and of higher quality, in my humble opinion.
Shh! If they find out we're funded by China they might use their powerful, scary AI word-cloud analysis on us and cause trouble (somehow).
Also Xi says to please increase the frequency of the usage of the phrase SWCC. He says if we are going to be funded we need to better extol its virtues and that means by the next paper like this it better be there near the very top or cuts are coming to our funding.
The comment length limit is 5,000 characters so you could make a comment consisting of SWCC 1,000 times
SWCC
SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC SWCC
Can't post the image because of the maintenance but basically we are the biggest Marxist forum, since the other web sites are stuff that's mostly not even Leninist, stuff like marxist.org, archive.vn, and news sites.
Marxists.org being tankie is the hot take I didn't really need. First they came for Stalin, then Lenin, then Marx. Eventually even Trotsky Encyclopaedia and raddle will join their ranks in the tanks.
Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Trotsky, Engels, Luxemburg - all tankies. Leo Iljitsch Stalinzedong and Karl Engels von Liebknecht killed 30 Billions people.
No joke, I remember writing absolute bullshit on facebook years ago to troll liberals. I said things like that Lenin kept slaves and bribed the workes with beer, to gain support. Guess what, their only problem were, that I said, that communism killed 5 billion people. This number was "a little bit to high" lol
You fool, you weren’t supposed to count the 1,000,000,000 Ukrainians that Stalin’s spoon killed as people /s
I said things like that Lenin kept slaves and bribed the workes with beer, to gain support.
Are you Ferdynand Ossendowski???
tankies focus more on state-level political events
In other words, the authors have no idea what they're talking about. We're abstracting to the level of classes, not states. Maybe they focused on the intellectually deprived western Marxist discourse.
Really did feel like a deliberate missing of the whole point, didn't it? Felt like a lot of their data stripped out any context that the posts they were 'analyzing' had; and drew deliberately-misleading takes from their sanitized data. Like, do you know any marxists who make a habit of attacking muslims? Meanwhile, most of the takedowns I see of Amerikans squawking about 'muh chingchang'(i've deadass heard a white person pronounce it that way; imagine these crackers actually learning how to pronounce 'Xinjiang') winds up boiling down to "Oh yeah, 'cause the country that spent fifteen years murdering muslims wholesale in the middle-east, and leaving depleted uranium in the sand to mutate their babies really cares about the Muslims in Xinjiang allasudden."
Great points. If they bothered to do any actual analysis, though, they wouldn't have been able to reach the conclusion that we're extremists. "People who think the US should stop provoking and prosecuting wars that displace and kill millions" and "people who think children shouldn't starve" don't have the same ring as "far left extremism"; it wouldn't let them do the enlightened centrist, 'all extremes are bad'.
Jfc, chingchang? They can't even hide their racism when their trying to pretend they're not racist. These will be the same people who depict Xi as Winnie the Pooh while criticising the CPC's approach to Xinjiang and pretend that they don't see the racist connotations. Wankers.
Yeah, any paper worth its weight in flour would at the very least have an appendix with illustrative examples of the comments they find interesting or have "high toxicity". By just talking about all content in abstract with random asspull metrics they get to claim objectivity while presenting zero actual information. Typical for the kind of people who like to reduce countries to their GDP (per capita if you're lucky).
Edit: I didn't notice that they actually did include some in their appendix after 5 pages with 135 citations. So much bloat and there's even a couple Washington Post articles there. They definitely didn't even read a lot of those beyond the abstract. Either way the examples are just strewn around in the text and did not include their "toxicity level" so the point still stands. Actually worst "qualitative analysis" I've ever read tbh, and that's usually already the worst in data science. More like "pseudoscientific cherrypicking".
"If you look here at figure X you can see a selection of the most frequent vocabulary. In figure Y you can see several possibilities of our own design that show the arrangement of the words in figure X into some rather mean and hurtful sentences. Disgraceful. Coincidentally when we sent this paper for peer review both reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 had come to similar conclusions and used a mixture of the words in our paper, the vocabulary database, and some choice additions to say, in similarly mean and hurtful tones, that our work was shit. We can't work out what it means right now but we're going to run the reviews through our system for a meta analysis before concluding that the reviewers we're Lemmygrad users."
Maybe they mean we talk more about imperialism and geopolitics than identity politics?
boy howdy, this """study""" entirely lacks an understanding of "tankie" positions.
We, according to them, are more toxic when talking about propaganda that's constantly pushed in our faces - often in conversations that had nothing to do with that propaganda. Gee, I wonder why that would be. Why would people who have to repeatedly explain anti-communism to anti-communists want to let off steam with like-minded people, who also have to deal with the same exact thing? Dumbass takes from this """study"""
Also, I'm betting the people who did this study are going to come find this post and use it to prove themselves right, but all they'll really prove is that they think it's the fault of the bees when a person gets stung after poking the nest.
