[ad_1]
On Lavoce.info, an information site that we like and consider serious, a “study” has been published that seems childish even after a quick glance: it seems so logically and scientifically. The title is “The rhetoric of the League hurts children” and the synthesis (they) is that “The rhetoric” anti-immigrant “has real effects on the well-being of people and especially children.” It is signed by four economics and statistics professors named Emanuele Bracco, Maria De Paola, Vincenzo Scoppa and Colin Green. This is demonstrated by a study that certifies the increase in harassment in electoral years in municipalities where the League has strong electoral support.
DIVISIVE RHETORIC
The authors start from the principle that “The effect of divisive rhetoric is detrimental to society” (a phrase already debatable, because what the authors define as “divisive rhetoric” in other respects is the salt of participatory democracy) and is cited another study. where “hate crimes” would have increased in Italian municipalities where a far-right mayor is in power, therefore “Negative effects can also occur between school desks: it would seem, for example, that Trump’s election coincided with an increase in bullying for racial reasons. ”And another study is cited. Before continuing, and arriving in Italy, we immediately clarified that, in the study, the cause and effect relationship seems to be interchanged: according to the teachers, schematically, the victory of a right-wing mayor coincides with the increase in bullying., in our opinion – but not only believe – bullying acts more easily where there is a problem (immigration) that the League intercepts and that people live on their own skin, to the point of electing a right-wing mayor to solve it: rightly or wrongly.
The “pitch to the right” is therefore a consequence, not a cause. The doubt arises from a partiality of the authors also from their use of the expression “extreme right” to define the League: any opinion is welcome, but it must be remembered that it is usual to define the parties of Casapound and Forza Nuova as “extreme right”, that in Italy they do not rule anywhere. But the key point is that the authors use the term “Northern League rhetoric” as a synonym for electoral propaganda referring to a false problem, something that the population receives only based on a “political climate” and not based on reality. where you live. Speaking of children, teachers also treat voters like children: the first is a bully, the second votes on the basis of “rhetoric”. “The leaders of the extreme right are known to use extreme rhetoric,” the academics write, “the case of Umberto Bossi is famous, who in 2003 suggested that the Italian authorities open fire on the boats carrying immigrants.” Rhetoric, therefore, according to the professors, means invoking solutions already adopted by other democratic countries also close to us.
They write again: “Matteo Salvini’s statements are no less impressive, just mention two very recent ones:” Other immigrants are coming and they will hang on, we don’t want these people “and” Why does the government import infected immigrants? “”. Now, the definitions of “rhetoric” are many, but in a modern key we refer to an ostentatious adherence to banal platitudes: which nevertheless refer to real events, not inventions. Salvini did not invent anything, he did not say anything false. It is possible to argue the desirability of keeping silent or waving a simplified truth, but teachers do worse because they have simplified to the extreme the causal links that they seemed to have. Likewise, the study could argue that in the municipalities administered by the League there are a greater number of teachers who are unable to suppress bullying in schools, but the point is always that of cause-effect reversal. “In municipalities where Lega Nord enjoys wide support and is competing for elections,” they write, “the electoral campaign is typically characterized by a strong focus on immigration issues.” But it was enough to say it like this: in the municipalities where there is a migratory problem, the League enjoys wide support. Final. Problems are not “focused” if they do not exist.
INTIMIDATION RISK
The teachers, however, insist with a fragile scientific method: “We estimate the effect of interest by comparing – within the same municipality – variations in bullying incidents in the year in which the elections are held with those in the year in which they are held. There is (and) our results show that there is a marked increase (about 10 percent) in bullying in election years. The increase affects immigrant children and occurs only in municipalities where the Northern League has a strong electoral base. “Another inversion of terms. Fortunately, at one point, deep down, they say:” Intolerance towards migrants could be higher in the most disadvantaged municipalities from a socioeconomic point of view and the disadvantage could be related with the spread of bullying in schools, having nothing to do with the rhetoric used in politics. It is already progress.
But it is the statistical method applied to such a study that produces water everywhere, and the teachers probably know this well. They speak of “rhetoric”, but they have developed a study that tends to strategically highlight one risk over another – regardless of its value – and to pit a minority against a majority. A classic of the English tabloid press. They did a typical statistical study whose assumption is not the demonstration of a concrete risk, but the impossibility of demonstrating its nonexistence. Not to mention that there is no serious statistical study, it is the academic field, which considers a risk that is less than twice the normal, that is, 200 percent (in jargon: 2.0) or even 300 percent (3.0) as significant. . Teachers have arbitrarily identified 10 percent more bullying in certain municipalities: and they have titled “The rhetoric of the Northern League hurts children.” Being on Voce.info, statistically sucks.
[ad_2]
