The original paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.12516.pdf) draws a different conclusion from what the article claims. Read Section 5 (Discussion) for details. Also, the analysis seems to be limited to looking at just two words, and to two groups (black and white), so I'm not sure how this generalizes. (the latter also makes the title of the post incorrect)
The OP post is also a right-wing-nonsense website that can't even get the affiliation of the authors correct ("University of Cornell").
Mods, please replace the link with a link to the paper, or to a more reputable academic source.
The OP post is also a right-wing-nonsense website that can't even get the affiliation of the authors correct ("University of Cornell").
Mods, please replace the link with a link to the paper, or to a more reputable academic source.