{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021718602455146365, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.856353591160221, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Raising the Bar for Scholarship on Protest and Politics

are of equal strength and can’t destroy the other so they can only chip away. Vertical differences in power lead to moralistic downward imposition of discipline: strong parties are self-righteous and frame the offense not just as against themselves personally but as offenses against morality (in Emerson, read: against normal human decency). On the flip side, upward rebellion against the strong is muted resistance. Failure of such tactics over time leads to tolerating the trouble or avoiding it by moving away, which happens when the parties are not interdependent and when one has the resources to move. Emerson’s data support rather than contravene these principles, but he does show much more fine-grained sequences in time. Bottom line: Emerson’s analysis is congruent with more abstract and more macro theories of conflict centered on crime and violence. And that is a good thing. Our field as a whole is making progress, accumulating a solid body of knowledge at all scales of the microscope.