this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2104 readers
70 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cringe compilation:
Apparently you can measure how toxic comments are on a graph.
This says we are racist against almost every race besides Native Americans.
It says Vaush isn't leftist (true) but then calls his subreddit "far-left."
My comments are so toxic that if you print them and ingest them you'll likely die.
What's the difference between toxicity and severe toxicity
poisonous: if it bites you, you die
toxic: if you bite it, you die
severely toxic: my mother in law after a couple beers yes Dana I remember the christmas party
It relies on this website to calculate both.
The measurements still seem somewhat subjective.
You can test how "toxic" comments are here: https://perspectiveapi.com/
they don't know us very well if they think a disrespectful comment is going to make us leave a conversation
Do they not realise that this is exactly what we face in every other online space for have the tenacity to insist that publicly recorded and strongly evidenced events did happen?
The part saying that they ‘observe that tankies attack the identities of Asians, Arabs, Hindus, Mexicans, Africans, and Whites in more than 20% posts mentioning these identities’ was what irritated me the most, because it is a serious accusation and yet it’s so poorly substantiated. (Notice how no quotes are given as examples.) It’s almost as if they relied on a computer programme to do all of their homework for them.
I suspect that the way they came to that conclusion was: any post mentioning one of those groups, that also had a negative sentiment rating, meant that sentiment was directed at that group. Which is horribly dishonest. What's more likely is someone to be angry (which registers as negative sentiment) about those groups being mistreated or what have you. By the naive approach they seem to have taken, that's indistinguishable from being mad at that group.
Also, the methodology they describe, and the conclusions they come to don't align. They don't describe any methodology by which they could determine that the identities are being attacked. It would be like if they concluded some cause-and-effect relationship but their methodology had absolutely no way of establishing a causal relationship in the data.