The whole article is quite funny, especially the lists of most used tankie words, or the branding of foreignpolicy as a left-wing news source.
The whole article is quite funny, especially the lists of most used tankie words, or the branding of foreignpolicy as a left-wing news source.
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.
Even then, most of the time, it’s because someone comes along and says, “You claim that China has built railways but don’t you know about Xinjiang, which means there can’t be any semiconductors”.
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.