Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:01 a.m. No.4306289   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6449 >>6463 >>6576 >>6660 >>6705

New research on memes "fake and gay"; watch the MSM use fake science to attack free speech

 

After the recent upsurge in hit pieces against us and groups like ours (conservatives, Q patriots & any other non-Globalist-puppet-clones), I started looking at the fake research groups that provide pseudo-scientific "data" to justify saying these groups are racist, white supremicist, homophobic, haters or whatever other adjectives the other side can come up with.

 

While working on this ongoing digg

 

>>4303851 (You), >>4304069 (You) Fake research groups justify new MSM attacks on "conspiracy theorists"

 

I ran across this charming little abstract that really deserves its own post, because it reveals how fake politically-motivated researchers can twist science to "prove" that we're all a bunch of low-life losers.

 

I'll take a look at the actual article–which is sure to be full of fancy modeling, abstruse language, and scary-looking stats–but the bottom line is this:

 

all their conclusions about the "racist" attitudes of anons on the Chans are BULLSHIT.

 

Of course, you already knew that. But it's handy to know why from a scientific point of view. Here are some problems the authors won't tell you about in their research paper:

 

  1. They have no way of knowing how to distinguish "real" community members ('anons') from shills who come here to post exactly the kind of content that "normal people " (i.e., intolerant, left-wing academics) find objectionable.'''

 

  1. They are going to categorize memes based on their own value system, now ours. We know that lefties can't meme–or even understand the satirical impulse that gives rise to top-kek memes. So how are they supposed to properly analyze them? (Answer: they can't; they call our favorite Shilly meme that looks like Shylock "the happy merchant"–they at least got the "merchant" part right…But they think it's one of OURS, not a shill creation!)

 

  1. They based their conclusions about our intentions without asking us about them–which they could easily do by interviewing some of us online. But then, why would they? That wouldn't serve their politicial goal of portraying us a "fringy racists."

 

  1. Doesn't look like they bothered to check and see how many posts are associated with the same identifier. We all know that shills have a much higher mean posting rate than anons–also, that they post repetitively. Did they take that into account? Do they even know this happens?

 

  1. Worse of all: If they want, they can even create exactly the data set they want by generating memes themselves! On anon boards, who's to stop them??

 

(And so on.)

 

I think these "researchers" already 'know" we're racists and are looking for ways to make their opinions look like facts. This is weaponized science, not real science.

 

SO FRENS, I would consider articles like these a warning shot over the bow. This article is from a primary source (although it may just be a conference paper). But it's still got enough oomph to add some scientific panache to articles from WaPo and other MSM channels. Expect to see more "scientifically-enhanced" articles in the coming months from WaPo, etc. All will show that memes are dangerous, are used to promote far-right political ideas, and must be "quarantined" to avoid contaminating the larger culture (Reddit, yes???).

 

This approach jibes perfectly with Q's warnings about patriots losing ground on social media (at least temporarily). This would be because it will take time for people to see thru game being played here. Not sure whether we can stop it, but figuring that Q has a plan. Still, it's good to see what's around the bend, to know what our adversaries are rolling out for the New Year.

 

PDF:

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10061780/1/De%20Cristofaro_On%20the%20Origins%20of%20Memes%20by%20Means%20of%20Fringe%20Web%20Communities_AAM.pdf

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:22 a.m. No.4306373   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4306159

 

I was wondering what Meadows was getting so irritated about….I know he wanted his cmte to get the 6000 pages but it could all have been an act–to HIGHLIGHT those pages, like "wow, they are so important." It sure made me curious–and maybe that was the plan.

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:28 a.m. No.4306397   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4306188

Even when I'm doing NOTHING but reading PB, digging, writing up digs, and reading Q drops, I can never keep up on everything. I just ask for guidance on what matters for me.

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:31 a.m. No.4306411   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4306205

Always think for myself while greatly respecting opinions of other anons and Q. We really ARE Q, and the more we believe that, the more we can take back our own country.

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:46 a.m. No.4306469   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6502

>>4306278

I'm not anti-R or pro-R and not a shill, either. Some of us just feel like this line of research is not a priority right now. Have you considered the possibility that this is also Q's view? That if he thought it was a sideroad at this moment, he would say No?

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:50 a.m. No.4306481   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4306299

I just posted on a study analyzing "racism" on social media including 4chan. I was musing about how they would code what we say all wrong–and your comment just backed that up!

 

They don't even realize that people use language here simply for the joy of saying things they can't say anywhere else. Or use it to create communion in ways the analysts would never dream of. NPC meme really hits the mark!

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 1:56 a.m. No.4306505   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4306301

It's different for everyone. But people in a place like this–including me–hate the way that schools take your money and then BORG you into becoming a "professional." Credentialism is stupid, always hated it even tho I wound up spending a lot of time in school because it's my nature (and can be cheap if you make it thru the first few years).

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 2:42 a.m. No.4306680   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6682 >>6728

>>4306630

I'm not as indifferent as I strive to be….but it's a worthwhile goal, always ask/pray when I feel myself becoming too fixated/attached. I like it when Q shows up and i can focus on a shared problem to solve rather than just wanting to say something for the sake of connecting>>4306652

Anonymous ID: d24b6f Dec. 14, 2018, 2:58 a.m. No.4306751   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6755

>>4306734

Well, yes….there are certain people who are persona non grata here for reasons I often find obscure. People will cry "famefag, namefag"–or worse. Anons are not perfect just because we are anon but sometimes I think we are not as broadminded as we could be.