the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Kinda surprised by this tbh. I know antivax weirdos and such were not the most pleasant of people but worse than the nazis?
I keep tabs on the anti-vax forums, it's actually not that hard to peel people off from hating pharma/Gates/et al. for stupid reasons, to the correct reasons. It's way harder to get the racism out of them. But anyway, honestly it seems a lot more likely to me that they're in the stats for the same or similar reasons to why this site is. "Landlords kill" versus "another vaccine death" and whatnot, the way these stats appear to have been compiled would both count as violent.
Research like this (word associations with groups of web posts) is bunk pseudoscience. You can draw any conclusion you want if you play around long enough with the parameters. And god knows what keywords they used to find "violent/aggressive discourse"
Probably not even doing word associations, sounds like it was just pure word count lol
they used Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) to screen for words indicating "violence" or "aggression", and then (by the sounds of it) they just counted the proportion of posts from each forum that had at least violent or aggressive word.
Here's my violent or aggressive word to add to the count: punch
:you-think-this-is-funny:
You're probably right, I really doubt these things go through rigorous peer review and have the methodology seriously analyzed.
Another user pointed out that the results are also largely a function of how well moderated the communities are, which is probably not a lot in antivax-like communities.