[redder23]

I do not trust any study used by the guardian.

Just from the heading "far-right" already a buzzword to signal to the left who the "evil" people are. And who determined who is "far" right. In propaganda news, this term is used for 10 years or whatever to describe everyone who dares to have a single opinion that is not left. "Far-right" is now used to everyone who is actually just right (often double meaning).

The heading also says "the left" so did the study compare an actual small group of "far right" people vs "the left". What were the metrics used for saying someone is "far-right"? And if they actually made the group small, then OF COURSE they get the outcome they wanted.

Or did the compare vs the "far-left"? Let me guess, of course not!

Or did they just compare "the right" vs "the left" and the Guardian just calls them that in the headline.

I frankly do not really care, I do not buy this shit. If someone wants to tell me in the comments guess I care, but I am not looking at that study because I know the outcome was already pre decided.

Only dump people still read the Guardian and other legacy media.

// Bahahahaah "Dutch study of tweets by MPs in 26 countries" says someone in the comments. Yeah, it's even WORSE than I thought. See I do not even to look into shit like this, I already know from the stupid headline it's complete utter bullshit.