Read on Twitter
I spent a lot of last night looking at the history of major riots in the United States and what happened afterwards.
Riots are *undeniably* followed by more/faster/stronger change than most any other form of protest. And by a lot.
Riots are *undeniably* followed by more/faster/stronger change than most any other form of protest. And by a lot.
One of the best studies on it is here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C.
Not">https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour... surprisingly (in retrospect) riots get way more attention than peaceful protest.
But what really sends coverage into hyperdrive is recorded instances of police brutality *at the riots*
Not">https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour... surprisingly (in retrospect) riots get way more attention than peaceful protest.
But what really sends coverage into hyperdrive is recorded instances of police brutality *at the riots*
I don’t fully understand all of the societal implications of that being true, and I’m not saying the ideal state of society is one where riots are the change agent people reach for.
I’m just saying you can’t look at the data and conclude anything other than “effective.”
I’m just saying you can’t look at the data and conclude anything other than “effective.”
The argument you could make that the data is wrong is a selection - e.g. that riots just tend to happen at points where society was already ready to change and it would have happened regardless and a parallel universe without riots would produce the same results.
But... idunno.
But... idunno.
