Riot!

[glasgowcyclist]

There is a thing called Crowd Contagion Theory or behavioural contagion which is quite interesting.

Thanks. I’ll have a read at that later (after I’ve made some cinnamon buns 🙂).

 

[BoldonLad]

There is a thing called Crowd Contagion Theory or behavioural contagion which is quite interesting. A thing I read but can no longer find suggests that it works along the lines of person A throws a brick at a shop/car/copper whatever. Person A's mates, people B see person A do this and because they are his mates and think similarly, they also join in. People C walk past and see what's happening. The more suggestive people from the C group start to join in. People D walk past and see smashed windows and people helping themselves to goods, and decide "I'll have some of that", and so become part of the rioting. The more people join in, the more they start to work together and do similar things, and as it spreads you get more and more people who would never normally have considered doing a thing, joining in. Obviously those fuelled by drugs and alcohol are more disinhibited and thus more likely to escalate what is happening.

So the "I only came across it by chance" is potentially a thing, but it doesn't follow that "I had to join in". Once that decision is made, you share the consequences with the other rioters.

Isn't this similar to the theory that vandalism which goes unrepaired, generates more vandalism?

 

[matticus]

Isn't this similar to the theory that vandalism which goes unrepaired, generates more vandalism?

No. IMO!

I think that's Broken Windows Theory (someone else can link to it :P )

 

[Beebo]

So the "I only came across it by chance" is potentially a thing, but it doesn't follow that "I had to join in". Once that decision is made, you share the consequences with the other rioters.

It’s a tricky defence to run if you live in Essex and have travelled up for the day.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

There is a thing called Crowd Contagion Theory or behavioural contagion which is quite interesting. A thing I read but can no longer find suggests that it works along the lines of person A throws a brick at a shop/car/copper whatever. Person A's mates, people B see person A do this and because they are his mates and think similarly, they also join in. People C walk past and see what's happening. The more suggestive people from the C group start to join in. People D walk past and see smashed windows and people helping themselves to goods, and decide "I'll have some of that", and so become part of the rioting. The more people join in, the more they start to work together and do similar things, and as it spreads you get more and more people who would never normally have considered doing a thing, joining in. Obviously those fuelled by drugs and alcohol are more disinhibited and thus more likely to escalate what is happening.

Well, I’ve had a read and subsequently found another view which, I feel, fits the Southport riot situation better and you can read it here: https://theconversation.com/english...ows-why-crowd-behaviour-isnt-contagious-83454

It suggests that those who become involved may do so because they share a common identity with the instigators. For example, despite having differing social identities they may all identify as anti-police and so act in concert against a common target. On any other day they may have fought amongst themselves as, say, opposing football fans or religious groups.

So far as I could tell, the Southport rioters identified as out and out racists.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Just in case anyone is interested in seeing my buns...

 

[Ian H]

Just in case anyone is interested in seeing my buns...


View attachment 7074

Did you knit them yourself?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Did you knit them yourself?

Yes!

It's a simple 3-strand plait that's then rolled up into a ball. Let me know if you want the recipe.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It’s a tricky defence to run if you live in Essex and have travelled up for the day.

I’m somewhat disappointed that not one of them used the oft-cited ‘legitimate concerns’ defence when they were all bragging on twitter at the time.

 

[BoldonLad]

No. IMO!

I think that's Broken Windows Theory (someone else can link to it :P )

Last time I looked, "similar" did not mean identical.

 

[matticus]

Last time I looked, "similar" did not mean identical.

I don't think they're similar. (OR identical!)

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't think they're similar. (OR identical!)

Fair enough. , and, IMHO, the link above supplied by GlasgowCyclist also fits with that similarity, but, feel free to disagree.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

There is a thing called Crowd Contagion Theory or behavioural contagion which is quite interesting. A thing I read but can no longer find suggests that it works along the lines of person A throws a brick at a shop/car/copper whatever. Person A's mates, people B see person A do this and because they are his mates and think similarly, they also join in. People C walk past and see what's happening. The more suggestive people from the C group start to join in. People D walk past and see smashed windows and people helping themselves to goods, and decide "I'll have some of that", and so become part of the rioting. The more people join in, the more they start to work together and do similar things, and as it spreads you get more and more people who would never normally have considered doing a thing, joining in. Obviously those fuelled by drugs and alcohol are more disinhibited and thus more likely to escalate what is happening.

So the "I only came across it by chance" is potentially a thing, but it doesn't follow that "I had to join in". Once that decision is made, you share the consequences with the other rioters.

Yes but it's part of a larger thing one does not just step into something like this and then participates it built upon years of frustration, yes people like Farage use that to cherry pick thing but the opposite is also true, you can't deny nothing has changed since we have had a mass influx from the middle east, since things like Al-queda, isis and the likes whilst Farage and the like clearly sells a lie implying it can ''all go back to how it was'' the other flip side claming that all migrants are angels isn't true either. Hell if you look at the main voices criticism this apart from Farage and the likes it are migrants from those regions themselves. Also for example Javid when he was in function being the first to call out that those girls in Rotherham where not only targeted because they are white but also because the offenders where Muslim and saw them as legitimate targets again because they where white and non muslim.
And if the general reactions then are something like ''only a few rotten apples'' ''maybe those girls wore very provoking clothing'' ''nothing to do with islam'' don't really help, they all add up and at some point they will get to a boil. like we have seen this summer.

You don’t know that.

It’s a generalised news report, not the entirety of police evidence against the rioter.

i would think they would mention it, but yes i don't know with the limited information available but if they did use somekind of social media group or whatever as there only source it is worrying.

Well, I’ve had a read and subsequently found another view which, I feel, fits the Southport riot situation better and you can read it here: https://theconversation.com/english...ows-why-crowd-behaviour-isnt-contagious-83454

It suggests that those who become involved may do so because they share a common identity with the instigators. For example, despite having differing social identities they may all identify as anti-police and so act in concert against a common target. On any other day they may have fought amongst themselves as, say, opposing football fans or religious groups.

So far as I could tell, the Southport rioters identified as out and out racists.

That is an very dangerous assumption so big as this group became it can't be true either not deny-ing that there where racist elements in theire but to claim the group in majority was a bunch of racist(or at least that's how i read your comment) is simply wrong. I do think i majority was lead to believe they ''gotta do something now'' and all the other lies ''there here to steal or jobs'' ''they are coming to rape or daughters'' ''they want to make us all muslims'' and order lies in random order but that does not make them racist. that makes them at best support racist statements, which to be clear isn't good either but isn't the same as your claim. and is enabled by our politics inability to tackle serious issue. The grooming gangs is an prime example. You can't see those things seperate they lead to distrust for authorities which is one of the key things enabling things like this. (which all of above quotes also say, covered up in something like ''anti police attitude etc.)

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Yes but it's part of a larger thing one does not just step into something like this and then participates it built upon years of frustration, yes people like Farage use that to cherry pick thing but the opposite is also true, you can't deny nothing has changed since we have had a mass influx from the middle east, since things like Al-queda, isis and the likes whilst Farage and the like clearly sells a lie implying it can ''all go back to how it was'' the other flip side claming that all migrants are angels isn't true either. Hell if you look at the main voices criticism this apart from Farage and the likes it are migrants from those regions themselves. Also for example Javid when he was in function being the first to call out that those girls in Rotherham where not only targeted because they are white but also because the offenders where Muslim and saw them as legitimate targets again because they where white and non muslim.
And if the general reactions then are something like ''only a few rotten apples'' ''maybe those girls wore very provoking clothing'' ''nothing to do with islam'' don't really help, they all add up and at some point they will get to a boil. like we have seen this summer.


i would think they would mention it, but yes i don't know with the limited information available but if they did use somekind of social media group or whatever as there only source it is worrying.



That is an very dangerous assumption so big as this group became it can't be true either not deny-ing that there where racist elements in theire but to claim the group in majority was a bunch of racist(or at least that's how i read your comment) is simply wrong. I do think i majority was lead to believe they ''gotta do something now'' and all the other lies ''there here to steal or jobs'' ''they are coming to rape or daughters'' ''they want to make us all muslims'' and order lies in random order but that does not make them racist. that makes them at best support racist statements, which to be clear isn't good either but isn't the same as your claim. and is enabled by our politics inability to tackle serious issue. The grooming gangs is an prime example. You can't see those things seperate they lead to distrust for authorities which is one of the key things enabling things like this. (which all of above quotes also say, covered up in something like ''anti police attitude etc.)

If you support racist statements, you're a racist.

 

[multitool]

It's been 24 years since 9/11. 19 years since the London bus bombings.

In the 24 years since 9/11 there have been just over 100 deaths at the hands of Islamic extremist terrorists in the UK.

In the 30 years of The Troubles there were 2000 deaths at the hands of Republican terrorists.

Just for some sense of perspective.