How scientific was the EU's methodology in creating their "Handbook of hate memes?"
What standards are there in the social sciences to do these kinds of "studies?"
https://www.docdroid.net/pCzfTzF/hatememehandbook-pdf
How scientific was the EU's methodology in creating their "Handbook of hate memes?"
Frick off, moron.
oh my, I sense a lot of hate from a limp dick
Go leave. Humanities are not science.
go back to sucking dick troony
>overflowing with impotent anger
😀
There must be a better A.I or I.T way of managing this information than as some human readable classification
scrolled over the first 10 pages. Looks like garbage made my lazy, uninspired students in a third rate school. Honestly super embarrassing and I'm surprised they put their names on that shit.
a scientific deconstruction of "the left can't meme" that falls flat on its face because it doesn't recognize the irony
can someone scientifically analyze the societal implications of israelitebacca? bump.
It's basically an exposition with lazy half baked analysis if any. Ignore the seething trannies telling you to take this leave. Take this to IQfy instead.
IQfy isnt very good with the scientific method I dont think. 'm more interested in margin of error and methodology, you know sciency shit. This is actual government creating and disseminating this stuff to government employees to make policy decisions on. Are they snopes tier morons with two cat ladies doing the "research" or does this shit hold water. If it doesn't hold water then doesn't the "scientific community" like the autists here need to be pointing it out and doing something about it?
This publication has little to do with the "scientific method" which is to experiment to prove or disprove hypotheses you make. The aim of this document is, as stated:
>This work is not a theoretical framework, but a hands-on showcase of online phenomena as they surfaced.
Going on and on about the scientific method just makes you look like someone who is clearly underage and does not have a proper understanding of the world.
>If it doesn't hold water then doesn't the "scientific community" like the autists here need to be pointing it out and doing something about it?
Not your personal army, homosexual. Again, take this artistic exposition to IQfy.
>Going on and on about the scientific method
I asked very specifically how scientific their methodology was as they will most certainly push it such. The scientific method is part of doing science. You sound like a real moron who likes to think himself quite clever when everyone around you thinks of you as quite the fool
>Not your personal army,
Quick questions are you scientist or just some dome dipshit who comes here to make himself feel smart because he is interested in things smart people are interested in?
If you are an actual person in the field of science how are you being in "someone's personal army" by holding your field, or at the very least something you are interested in to certain level of professional standard?
You a top tier level moron and the poster child of what is wrong with politics, your generation, science, academia and just the world as a whole. Congratulation of reaching this level of being a worthless sack of shit, few achieve this level
how would you rate this publication as a tribute to the gibs grant gods?
will they get money for "further analysis"?
I wouldn't call this a study at all. It is a pamphlet at best. The type of thing you would make in a 200 or 300 level class in college to show the teacher you aren't a complete moron, and so they can tick off a box that you know how to make a multimedia essay. Pretty sure I had to do something very similar in my sophmore english class.