i'm thinking about their claim that "the predominant topic of discussion" among tankies is the uyghur "genocide." like bro there's 99 more percentiles of non-uyghur related topics. i see a post about xinjiang on here like once a month.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
237 points (94.1% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2274 readers
94 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I have an idea about why they'd come to a weird conclusion like that:
A "hot" topic like that might have outsized participation. That is, a single post about the topic may have a huge number of comments compared to an every day post. They don't have methodology to differentiate between a rare-but-popular topic and an "every day" topic.
Just another example of how their poor methodology allows poor conclusions.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Not surprised to see that two of the three authors (not calling them scholars, this isn't scholarship) are from Binghamton University, considering their horrid reputation as of late. Anyone curious can read more here: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/art-history-professor-lawsuit-discrimination-and-retaliation-against-suny-binghamton-1234660025/
This is one of the most hilarious things I've seen all year. Also one of the most infuriating, as its such a shockingly poor work of "research". Imagine being an apparently legitimate professor who takes themselves seriously and putting your name on this, even as a grift this should be embarrassing.
that aside there are so many choice bits in here, true comedic genius
Good old McCarthyism
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)