Daningo
says 2011-08-12T14:53:10.000Z
Have you seen any posts on what programs got cut - detail on the budgets for the riot areas? Is there correlation?
I suspect that one would have to listen to BBC much more thoroughly than I do to have this info. I listen for ten minutes here and there.
Plus, correlation doesn't work like that, I don't think. Correlation is almost never 1:1 when it comes to social or collective action.
It tends to run in sets--12:1. Put differently, you would have to see changes to multiple programs, which produces widespread resentment,
which then leads to anger that is set off by a "triggering event." The triggering event in this case was the shooting. That pattern
Calaban
is 2011-08-12T15:29:25.000Z
fairly general, at least, for the US context.
It is a pattern I teach in my course on civil rights, when I discuss the violence--racial hate crimes and urban riots--aspects of that mvt.
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T15:41:09.000Z
I get that the resentment spreads beyond those directly impacted by cuts so there may be no correlation to the final rioters,
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T15:47:39.000Z
but it would be good to see evidence that there was actual impact from the cuts vs rumor (I'm not looking for anyone here to provide that)
I understand that you are not asking anyone here to provide that evidence, but it is still an interesting research question that is useful
to our political conversations. What sort of evidence demonstrates impact?
Calaban
is 2011-08-12T15:52:55.000Z
testimony of a rioter that s/he has been hurt by cuts good evidence for impact? Are statistics about relative wealth trends, that the poor
get poorer, good evidence? Is evidence that unemployment in the section of town were rioting occurred increased by 2% good evidence? I'm not
asking to be confrontation, but to both illustrate the complexity of the task/research involved and to show how easy it is to disagree
about policy issues, because what is good evidence for one party is bad evidence for another. First, one agrees on the relevant question.
Then one agrees on a method for answering the question. Then one needs to agree on the evidence that illustrates the answer.
Then there is the need to at least begin to agree on an interpretation of the evidence.
This is the process that needs to happen, and it precisely that process that doesn't happen either among politicians or among citizens who
disagree about public policy.
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T16:10:01.000Z
Yes, those are good points to apply - one specific example I'd like to see would be a geographic impact of the specific program cuts blamed
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T16:10:58.000Z
as a causal factor - those could conceivably be determined by the UK govt from check records, programs shuttered or reduced
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T16:11:38.000Z
I do think testimony from residents about the impact of cuts is valuable, but discount second or third hand testimony
Calaban
says 2011-08-12T16:12:09.000Z
the research on political persuasion is pretty clear that most folks, regardless of their political preference, are persuaded not by info or
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T16:12:34.000Z
You are going to the same place I was - to an extent, facts and evidence don't matter
Calaban
says 2011-08-12T16:13:49.000Z
evidence but on whether or not the claim/message agrees with what they already believe or want to believe. divergent data is ignored or
Daningo
says 2011-08-12T16:13:49.000Z
Well, you may be going that direction
Calaban
says 2011-08-12T16:14:52.000Z
misinterpreted to support the person's original position. true of the left and the right.