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.
TO THE MOON
INVEST NOW
As an anarchist, I’m betting on a short (yes I own stocks, it funds the revolution, you tankies would do this too if you were actually socialists like me and realised the revolution doesnt come from your well wishes and online posting). As more and more people realies how tankeis are actually not socialists but authoritarian red fascists, they will naturally abandon this label and it will plummet in the graph. its just human anture.
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 did an in-depth ‘debunk’ of this study.
I want to highlight the most egregious part of it, to me at least. Here’s an excerpt from my article:
As we find later in Section 5.4, tankies have the most proportion of posts with high identity attack against Jews in the far-left community.
??? Let’s pull up that section quickly:
The Perspective API [92] is a widely used [9, 12, 26] tool for measuring toxicity. Although it has limitations, e.g., there are issues of bias and questions of performance when encountering conversation patterns that it was not trained on, at scale it provides a decent measure for comparison between online communities.
They used an API tool to analyze comments on the tankie subreddits. They specifically mention that it has limitations if it wasn’t trained on certain conversation patterns. The Perspective website doesn’t mention it being trained on Reddit comments or comments in leftist communities. This is junk science, of course.
Finally, we observe that tankies frequently target Muslims and Jews in their posts.
I’m not about to dig too deep into the way this API determines what constitutes an Identity Attack, since this study doesn’t even attempt to elaborate on it, but I’m going to assume that if it detects ‘hateful words’ in the same comment as a ‘named entity’ like Jew or Muslim, it just assumes the comment is attacking that entity.
Here’s the problem. A comment like this:
“Zionists are pieces of shit for assuming all Jews support Israel”
or this:
“Implying that the US gives a fuck about Muslims when they criticize China is delusional”
would likely be considered by this bot to be an attack against Jews or Muslims. Curiously, this report doesn’t provide a single shred of evidence of these attacks on Jews or Muslims. But, in the ‘C.1 Qualitative Validation’ section, they do give some examples of the toxic comments that this bot identified. Not a single one is specifically about Jews or Muslims.
Here’s two examples:
To me, boarding schools serve as schools for potential terrorists, and China’s approach seems more humane than the US’s
and
Zionism equates to Fascism.
Neither comment is an Identity Attack against Muslims or Jews. The first is talking specifically about the small portion of Uyghurs that China has identified as being radicalized, not all Muslims. The second is about Zionism, which as this study pointed out, does not mean all Jews. Neither one contains the word ‘Jew’, or ‘Muslim’, anyway.
Hmm, I wonder why they omitted that. Because the truth doesn’t fit the ‘tankie bad’ narrative they are pushing? This is research misconduct, pure and simple, and this singular example of evidentiary omission should cause any non-tankies reading this study to dismiss it in its entirety. But of course, it won’t.
"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 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
current socialist systems
Stalin
Damn if only
The Juche necromancers are trying their best, and that’s all we can ask for.
He really doesn’t want the job again.
But we need him, we REALLY need him
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?
They’re really not sending their best people.
We gotta get prolewiki on there next.
The whole thing just screams of “Fund me, daddy CIA!”
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.
Which is why we’re worth every Xi buck.
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
Me reading this:
It sure is lovely that the “AI” “Revolution” has given hacks a bunch of hard to audit but scientific-sounding metrics for them to apply however they want.
Armchair peer review time: I’d love to see them introducing a control group for their “toxicity” model by including subs from their other identified clusters. How can you know what it means for tankies to be millions of billions toxic if you don’t have baselines? I do like how they agree with r/liberal and r/conservative being in the same cluster though. On the domain analysis I’d require them to also include the total number of articles and not just the percentages, which I’d bet would give a fun graph.
Overall, I’ve read less funny and more informative parody papers. For the AI nerds, this one might be fun.
🤣🤣🤣 I’m in tears. Actual tears.
I’d love to see them introducing a control group for their “toxicity” model by including subs from their other identified clusters. How can you know what it means for tankies to be millions of billions toxic if you don’t have baselines?
Ironically(?) the funding is to develop a machine learning algorithm not to spot and moderate racism but to spot and moderate the least racist of any two examples. Which means, the project is to develop a comparative model but they haven’t thought about using comparison within the research itself. Meanwhile, real scholars get fired from all over the place for being in unions and demanding a living wage.
It sure is lovely that the “AI” “Revolution” has given hacks a bunch of hard to audit but scientific-sounding metrics for them to apply however they want.
I’m slogging through it right now and coming to similar assessments. “With enough Machine Learning shenanigans, I can arrive at whatever conclusion I want!”
They’re tired of gaslighting people into becoming liberals, now they’re doing it with machines. Whoever thought of letting misinformation giants like Google “teach” “AI” should be fired
at.
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.
Somebody’s worried. Let me know when a “left-wing extremist” shoots up a school or invades the capitol. All they did was give me a list of websites to visit.
Not just websites, we’ll even recommend books for you to read! Truly, we are the greatest evil.
Why do they think we think all Jews are Zionists?so like the pairs talk about Zionism and Israel and their conclusion is the complete opposite? That we target all Jews? Despite never using the word??
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.
lemmygrad is the 4th most popular “tankie” website
based
It’s surreal to see the word “tankies” in something that claims to be an academic paper…
I’m glad that we’re apparently so popular, though!
we did it boys, soon we are officially on the FBI watch list
Michael Sirivianos’ grandpa took part in a right-wing extremist ultranationalist coup in Cyprus, which led to the Turkish invasion. He is suspected to be involved in a genocidal incident that was covered up. His uncle was a right-wing political leader and when he was the President of the Parliament in Cyprus, he was involved in the golden passports scandal (see this excellent Al Jazeera undercover report which initiated the investigation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj18cya_gvw). His position in the University of Cyprus was “arranged” by his uncle when he was Parliament President.
Every single fucking time. Wonder if his “research colleagues” know of his background?
I’d say they probably know of his affiliations. I dont think this sort of paper gets written “randomly”. So-called disinformation experts are by and large state operators, and Western states have been fervent anticommunists since 1917.
