:yes-hahaha-yes-l:
:sicko-hexbear:
Otherwise gee fucking idiots I guess you realy needed a whole research department to figure things out like
•Alt-Right supergroup activity remains near its all-time high. This activity has been high since the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago in August (Fig. 1).
•The forums with the greatest use of Violent/Aggressive discourse in November were in Health Misinformation, scoring higher than Incels/Femcels and the Extreme Right (Fig. 7).
•Reference to sex crimes was up 13% in December and was up 32% since August (Fig. 11).
:the-democrat: reading this : “Great, its all according to the plan. Carry on mrMcdoofus, keep us informed, this is very useful information, it will come in handy when we decide to do absolutely nothing for the next 2 years.”
I think its a bit interesting how the Ukraine war basically did not move the needle at all, despite the extremely edgy :reddit-logo: posts saying all the nasty shit against Russians, either they are not counting racism or xenophobia(very likely selective bias here) or as expected the “extreme” devotion to defending Ukraine is just reddit shit that barely registers anywhere else.
They have one graph that corroborates every other finding e.g Google trends. The Ukraine war completely dropped off the radar. It is still relevant but just part of “contemporary” discourse lol.
Good point, where’s the extreme liberalism calling for the murder of the homeless? Execution of all the orcs? Etc etc etc. Doesn’t exist because it’s not a measure of extreme rhetoric but “anyone saying mean things that want to change the status quo or do anti-imperialism”.
You’re a hack Dick Rogers.
The best part about it is that the peer reviewers also won’t know what any of this stuff is despite being ‘experts’ and thus will let it slide out the rectum of article writing.
I know I shouldn’t really talk about this but I almost got kicked off my school’s undergrad peer review council for rejecting too many papers because I had the audacity to actually check and read their source material which, hey surprise, more often than not didn’t say what they said it said, or even contradicted what they said. I think one of the last straws when they told me to knock it off was when I had remembered reading an article that was basically the same research project, published a month before the paper was written, but was uncited by the paper as a contradictory study, despite complete relevance.
They were like ‘they don’t have to have every journal article possible in there’ and I was like ‘come on they didn’t even bother to check for recent background studies, who knows what other older ones they missed, they probably didn’t even consult a librarian.’ After that I just decided, fuck it, if they don’t care, I won’t care either.
I’m betting that if the US government starts a new war, any advocacy for the war (from the government, the media or normal internet users) wouldn’t register at all, since they don’t define it as “extremism” or a “call to violence”. Just like the only “fake news” regarding 9/11 is people saying that GW Bush did it. Because the US government, NYT, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and all other media just lying that Iraq was involved isn’t defined as “fake news” to begin with.