Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2020

FROM HATEFUL WORDS TO HATE CRIMES--NEW RESEARCH SHOWS A CLEAR LINK

As children most of us learned some version of the phrase "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That old saw may help some of us shake off unkind words in some circumstances, but new research underlines just the opposite--hateful words on social media can lead to actual hate crimes.

Trump at CPAC, 2013
Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Writing in the Journal of the European Economic Association, co-authors Karsten Müller, at Princeton University, and Carlo Schwarz, at Bocconi University in Milan, Italy, detail links between anti-immigrant and anti-refugee posts on Facebook and violent crimes against those targets, based on events in Germany between January, 2015 and February, 2017.

You can read the details behind their findings in the open-access paper, "Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime."

As presented in the paper, the authors found a significant, nearly linear correlation between the incidence of hate speech on Facebook and actual hate crimes. This was especially clear for municipalities with above average numbers of Facebook followers of Germany's leading anti-immigrant, anti-refugee political party, Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany, or AfD. (For a striking graph, see page 17 of the paper). 

The authors write, ". . . we find that--during periods of high salience of refugees on right-wing social media--anti-refugee hate crimes increase . . . This correlation is especially pronounced for violent incidents such as assault."

Müller and Schwarz did something very clever in order to go beyond mere correlation and get closer to testing for a causal relationship between hate-filled content on social media and hate crimes. They took advantage of hundreds of local or regional internet outages that took place during the years of the study, outages which temporarily blocked a given area's exposure to hate speech on Facebook. 

It turned out that a local internet outage acted much like turning down a dimmer switch or letting up on the gas pedal of your car--the internet outages cut down the number of hate crimes in the affected areas. The cause-and-effect relationship was made even clearer by the fact that even during periods when anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment and hate crimes were surging throughout the country, those crimes did not increase in regions temporarily without internet access. "Quantitatively, a typical internet disruption fully mediates [breaks] the link between social media and hate crime," the researchers write.

They still caution that the "natural experiment" provided by localized internet outages wasn't quite enough to prove causation. Their interpretation is that the flow of hate speech through media such as Facebook encourages and enables hate crimes and makes them more likely, but is just one of many causes. ". . . we do not claim that social media itself causes crimes against refugees out of thin air. Rather, our argument is that social media can act as a propagating mechanism for hateful sentiments that likely have many fundamental sources." 

Similarly, one could say that stomping on the gas pedal doesn't cause your car to speed up, it just adds fuel to an already-running engine.

Interestingly, the researchers found that the enabling link between hate speech and violent assaults was particularly strong for attacks involving groups of perpetrators. We may have seen just such a link between President Trump's support of or refusal to condemn armed, right-wing and often violent groups and the 13 white nationalists now under indictment for plotting to kidnap and try Governor Whitmer of Michigan. It would be incredibly naive to believe that Trump's words don't encourage such violent groups to act, as testified to by their own comments.

So it looks as though hateful words can and do "propagate" or fuel actual attacks with "sticks and stones," or worse, especially when those words are amplified and echoed on social media and heard again and again by aggrieved individuals brought together by the same media.

---

REA






---


Thursday, March 21, 2019

WHAT'S RIGHT WITH THIS PICTURE? NEW ZEALAND RESPONDS TO GUN VIOLENCE

Here in the US, whenever there's a mass shooting we re-enter a futile, paralytic cycle. Gun-control advocates use the tragedy to argue once again for stricter laws. Second-Amendment advocates launch a counter attack, saying "now is not the time." Their supporters in Congress offer "thoughts and prayers." Their critics point out their hypocrisy. Gun-lovers rush to buy more guns. Nothing changes. And, within a few days we endure yet another massacre.

 "This is not New Zealand"
Credit: AP/Vincent Yu

As we know, a week ago New Zealand was shocked when a white racist gunman murdered 50 people at their prayers. The nation united in revulsion. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke movingly about the victims, vowed never to mention the shooter's name in order to deprive him of the notoriety he sought, and promised to enact stricter gun-control laws and ban semi-automatic weapons entirely as soon as April 11.

Most remarkably, at least some New Zealanders are voluntarily turning their weapons over to the police to be destroyed.

There's a problem. The government responds. People respond. It sounds so sensible. It must feel very good to be part of a functional society and government.

Why not here?

-----

Click here for a more in-depth commentary on this subject.

-----

If you liked this post, please sign up to follow or receive email alerts from zerospinzone.




Wednesday, April 25, 2018

THE COP WHO DIDN'T SHOOT--A CANADIAN OF COURSE

The contrast couldn't be greater. When Canadian police officer Constable Ken Lam tracked down Alek Minassian, the suspect charged with running down multiple pedestrians in Toronto on April 23, Minassian did everything he could to provoke the officer into shooting him. Minassian held an object that looked like a gun in his hand and pointed it towards the officer. He twice reached towards his pocket, then quickly raised his hand as if he were pulling and pointing a gun.

Minassian tries to provoke Canadian police officer to shoot him
Credit: CBC.ca

"Kill me," Minassian demanded.

"No. Get down," the officer replied.

"I have a gun in my pocket."

"I don't care," said the officer. "Get down."

You can view the video here.

In it, the officer calmly turns off his car's siren, holsters his gun, advances towards the suspect with his baton raised, and arrests him. No shots fired. No violence. Absolute professionalism.

I can't help but compare this with the dozens of videos I've viewed of similar situations here in the United States. Videos in which far less threatening situations escalate in seconds and conclude in a barrage of shots and a dead body, often found to be unarmed. Here's an example, one of far too many.

The US has about ten times more citizens than Canada. Canadian police kill an average of 25 people a year. US police kill more than 1000 people every year. According to a recent study, that represents more than 50,000 years of life lost (YLL), most of it by the early deaths of young Black men. Clearly, something is very different about police-suspect relations in the US and Canada (and most other developed countries).

----------

You can read earlier posts about police killings in the US here and also here.









Monday, January 01, 2018

US POLICE KILLED 1129 PEOPLE IN 2017

The database Mapping Police Violence reports that police in the US killed 1,129 people in 2017; an average of three people every day. The number is unacceptable but not surprising--US police officers have killed more than 1,000 people every year for at least the past three years.

As has been the case for many years, the color of your skin matters a lot, with Blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans being killed a far higher rates than whites, independently of whether or not they were suspected of a violent crime or were armed.

One out of 1,129

As has also been the case for many years, the US is an extreme outlier compared to other countries. As documented by the Guardian, US police kill more people in a few days than police in other countries do in years.

Our nation's current attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is doing everything he can to make this situation worse. He's ended an Obama-era federal police oversight program that had cut the police killing rate in cities with some of the worst rates of police killings. Trump too is doing his best to make things worse by repeatedly demeaning and besmirching the patriotism of the NFL players protesting police violence, along with the Black Lives Matter movement.

How about a national new year's resolution to save 500 lives by cutting the rate of police killings in half? Even if we were to accomplish that, US citizens would still be at far greater risk of being killed by their police than people in other countries, but at least it would be a start.

It can be done. Studies have shown that police departments that require officers to use all other means before shooting cut their killing rate by 25 percent, as do departments that require that all use of force be reported. Simply banning chokeholds and strangleholds cuts police killings by 22 percent.

It can be done, but not with the kind of leadership currently coming from Washington.

-----

You can read earlier posts on this subject here and also here.

-----

If you liked this post, please sign up to follow or receive email alerts from zerospinzone.blogspot.com.

Friday, October 28, 2016

SOBERING STATISTIC--ONE IN SIX AMERICANS PLANS TO BUY A GUN BEFORE THE ELECTION

Steven Rosenfeld, author and political analyst for AlterNet, posted an attention-getting piece today about the threat of violence during or after the coming presidential election. Rosenfeld's post is well worth reading.

Gun Show, Houston, Texas: Credit Wikipedia
As it becomes clearer that Trump is going to lose, he's been increasing his rhetoric claiming that the election is rigged against him, and some high-profile backers like radio host ex-congressman Joe Walsh have not-so-subtly called for a violent response should he lose. With Trump repeatedly claiming that there are millions of potentially fraudulent registered voters, and some followers talking about policing voting places, there's certainly a possibility of intimidation of some voters. And with 31 states allowing firearms to be carried openly, and 13 more allowing open-carry with a special permit, the possibility of violence at voting places can't be ignored.

The rhetoric is having its predictable effect, at least among Trump's core backers, with more than 40% saying they won't recognize Hillary Clinton as the legitimate president.

According to a USA Today poll, half of likely voters expect violence on election day. Let's hope they're wrong.