Some thoughts on extremist "art"

On hearing about the new shock film: 'A Serbian Film" - which I must state I have not seen but relied on several reviews and reports -  I shared my thoughts on Facebook thus:

The problem I have with rubbish like this is that it so often works as a substitute for talent. A rubbish film or album this controversial will attract controversy, people watch/listen because of curiosity, therefore the makers get money and that motivates the next bunch of talentless tossers to do something even worse. I always hold Roy Chubby Brown up as one such example of controversay trumping talent.

The real answer to such nonsense is to ignore it and shrug our shoulders at people trying to get our attention by being obscene, but for some reason the human race struggles to do that.

This is, of course, not to suggest that every offensive figure lacks talent. Eddy Murphy is a great comedian and Marilyn Manson are a good band. 



I've just read the "reception" section on wikipedia for this film. I think one reviewer made a good point and one that I forgot to mention - rubbish artists, actors and producers who make obscene rubbish always turn it into a) a battle against censorship or b) some pseudo-allegorical nonsense about politics, society or human psyche
It looks like the producers of this movie may have done both.
When told a piece of art has undertones, we try to find them, but it's often a case of 'The Emperors New Clothes'.
Necrophilia is not an allegory for the Sebian independence movement or a cry for freedom of speech. It's just bloody sick.


To be fair, imdb does have some intelligently written reviews defending the film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1273235/usercomments

Lest we forget

Image credit: www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328703/Remembrance-Day-Poppy-burning-Muslim-protesters-mar-Armistice-Day.html

I normally don't look at UAF sites as they are worthless, hateful trash but just out of curiosity I looked today to see if they mentioned this. Surprise, surprise, no poppy or sign of respect, no mention of this incident and raving about their secretary having charges against him dropped as it would affect "the right to protest". The biggest threat to the "right to protest" is those fascist, violent, hate filled UAF scum.

Aplogies for the lack of articulation but I felt so angry after reading this.

Lest we forget, and may they rest in peace.

A letter I had published

So, Dr Ajong Chumsai na Ayudhya warns us in a conference that Bangkok will be under water in seven years, and it's all due to human activities and, apparently, the displacement of the earth's crust.

I wish I had been there to ask the good doctor two questions following his presentation. Firstly: Where is the evidence for these chilling, apocalyptic claims? I've seen plenty of data confirming natural disasters are, if anything, currently occurring at slightly below average frequency, and absolutely no evidence that polar bears will be extinct in six years. In fact, their numbers are currently holding up very well indeed. As for sea levels rising by six metres, even the IPCC climate-change panel has said nothing so ridiculous.


My second question would then be: Are you under some financial incentive to produce and follow up on these chilling warnings? We all know that taxpayers are more likely to part with their earnings when buttered up with a few scary stories beforehand.


In any case, I'm willing, quite literally, to bet my Bangkok house that the doctor is totally wrong and that Krung Thep will still be here and above water in 70 years, never mind seven.

Greg


Bangkok

Climate Change - still no evidence it's humans

It was an event so remarkable that it was almost lost on some people. Dr Phil Jones - the professor at the centre of the East Anglia CRU "Climategate" scandal - was allowed to approve which papers were used in evidence during some of the "independent" investigations into the scandal. It's a bizarre decision that seems equivalent to a robber approving which stolen items can be used as evidence in court. Then again, perhaps it's not all that surprising since one of the "independent" investigative bodies had the logo and email address of East Anglia University on their own logo.

But really, who cares? Who will notice? For most people, Climategate is old news. The casual current affairs observer read that some scientists got in trouble, they may have been lying about global warming but then a whole bunch of people checked and said they were fine. As for those already involved in such a fiercely polarised debate, well, they were never going to budge anyway. Sure enough, order was quickly restored as the whitewashing investigations did their job, the media went crawling back to every scientist who assured us climate change is real and the sceptics became the pantomime villains once again. Certainty was restored.

The only problem is, nobody seems to know: what we are supposed to be certain of? Next time you hear someone preaching about climate change, how serious it is and how we need to take action yesterday, ask them a few questions. Start with something easy such as: "What exactly are we certain is happening?". Most of them will mention Earth is getting warmer, the halfway smart ones will remember to mention something about co2 or anthropogenic activity.

Now ask a very slightly more informed questioned that cannot be answered with bluster, something like: "When was the last year that temperatures actually peaked?"(Answer: 1995) , follow that with a few more moderate queries like: "How much of the temperature rise is due to carbon dioxide?" (Nobody knows) "What is the hottest time period on record?" (Answer: The Medieval Warm Period)  and so on. Before long they'll admit they don't know. You might even get called a 'denier' or some other insult for good measure. The reality is that most of us don't really know a great deal behind the science of climate change, but some of us like to pretend we do. In truth, we do as all generations have done and look to our finest minds to guide us in the esoteric ways of science. Therein lies the problem.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded unit of scientific specialists who are responsible for researching, predicting and advising the rest of the world about global warming. With a huge amount of lobbying influence and a whole wealth of corporate interests flying around, we can surely be forgiven for expecting the unit to provide us with accurate, understandable and specific data about what's happening and what's going to happen. The reality is the exact opposite.

Predictions, warnings and forecasts from the IPCC ever since its inception in 1990 have been vague, wrong and contradictory to the point of resembling a tabloid astrologer's column. We've been warned over and over again of temperature increases that have not happened. We've been told the warming would first appear at the poles. Hot weather spells are due to global warming but snowfall is also a sign of the same thing. There will be more floods or hurricanes.  Certain animals will become extinct, others will multiply by the horde. The extra co2 - required for respiration in plant life - will encroach the rainforest. It will create droughts, but extra rainfall is also a symptom. The surreal list goes on and on. Can we really blame the laymen for being unclear when this is what they are fed on?

The list of doomsday events such as extra natural disasters, melting poles and "unprecedented" (one of the IPCC's favourite and most overused words) heat are not random. They are designed to create fear, for fear is what keeps the taxpayers happy to part with their money for the nice scientists who will protect them.

But if you've lost any sleep about any of these nightmare-like events we've been warned about, go and get some shuteye right now. There is absolutely zero evidence that hurricanes, volcanoes or any other disaster has increased in frequency. In fact, they seem to have declined very slightly.  The decline of the Arctic ice has received (ahem) extended interest from the media and the IPCC, both of whom neglect to mention that decline has been in trend since the end of the last Little Ice Age and is not accelerating. Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice is doing great. Funny, we don't hear about that.

As for "unprecedented" temperatures and the warnings from the likes of Al Gore that several of the last fifteen years have been the hottest on record, well it's just plain false. That's the reason alarmists hate to hear about the Medieval Warm Period.

Of course, none of this proves that AGW is false or a flawed theory, but it must surely prove to any sane person that even our supposed finest minds really don't know what is happening, to what extent it's happening or what will happen in the future. So why is there so much talk of a "consensus"? Could the multi-million dollar business interests of the IPCC have anything to do with it? Don't mistake this as a conspiracy theory. The only "conspiracy" you need to accept here is that powerful people will lie to get themselves rich. WMDs anyone? How about some MPs expenses on the side?

There's more reason to be sceptical. Huge parts of the AGW theory fall flat on their face. The theory clearly states that warming will appear in the troposphere, it isn't. It says that co2 will drive climate, in history the opposite has happened on a large scale. It states the sea levels should rise exponentially, they aren't. There's any number of examples where things simply aren't happening as they should be if the basic theory of increased radiative forcing generated by increased co2 emissions was straightforward and steadfast.

Perhaps the biggest slice of misinformation in this whole debate is the term used to describe scientists who oppose the mainstream opinion, the so-called 'deniers' - a term deliberately chosen for its disgusting undertones - is used to smear knowledgeable, qualified and good-natured people who dare to dissent. Very few scientists I have read from have denied the climate is changing, climate is always changing. What they dispute is the extent to which co2 plays a role in that change.

The theory of heat transference in the atmosphere is well established, but as we've seen, climate is a new and uncertain science with an incredible number of factors to consider; solar output, natural feedbacks, cloud feedback, continental shifts, astrophysics and more. A number of well-qualified scientists question if the increased co2 emissions will have any effect whatsoever. Many more believe that there will be an effect, but it will be far gentler than the IPCC suggest, and the trillions of dollars we will spend trying to cut temperatures by a minuscule percentage may be far better spent on reducing real pollution, researching cleaner energy, building hospitals or any other number of good causes. A layman 'denier' like me is inclined to agree.

The problem with the EDL

I do not pretend to be knowledgeable or even well informed about the English Defence League. The group were formed after I left the UK and the main source of detail I receive is from Facebook groups or minor newspaper articles.

However, even with such a trickle of knowledge, I had a hunch from very early on that there is more ton this group than meets the eye.

The EDL are clearly a defeatist party who will never gain mainstream acceptance. There is nothing new about this of course. Both sides of the political spectrum have small groups who want to live out some form of fantasy (think neo-Nazis or neo-Bolsheviks) and take pride on being outsiders, destined to be political losers forever. What seems to make the EDL different is the speed with which they have formed and become organised and the amount of attention they are receiving. The group are already organising marches around the nation, receiving lots of hits on their website and everyone involved in politics has an opinion on them. Compare this to the controversial BNP or even the National Front. Both groups took years to gain enough support to yield attention or concern.

Part of the reason for the EDL's appeal lies in the simplicity of their message. They're not a 'ballot box' political party, so they don't need to even pretend they have policies. Their focus is simple: march in support of the flag and against Islam. They do not have a racial agenda (though many on the left dispute this) and no political aspirations. If you're English, you're one of them. Or so they claim.

With immigration such a huge political issue at the moment and the government (new or old) appearing so weak in dealing with the failure of multiculturalism, the EDL's simple message reaches out to many disenchanted working class Brits who feel so betrayed by politicians and sick of political correctness. They are searching for a voice and they believe the EDL gives it to them.

But the problem is that a greatly simplified message will - for the most part - attract fairly simple people. It's no coincidence that the biggest reaction to the recent "Police are telling people in pubs they cannot wear England Shirts" hoax that did the rounds online and in the UK media came from EDL supporters. They took no time to consider the authenticity of the message or check any sources. They read it, so it must be true.

This is not a description of all EDL members and I'm sure many of them are more intelligent, qualified and wise than myself, but I think the majority of members fit my description.

EDL marches paint a similar picture. So many shaved heads, hooded tops and angry faces play perfectly into the hands of their objectors or despicable groups like the UAF who seek any excuse to silence groups whom they dislike. There have been claims and accusations of widespread violence and anti-semitism on display at EDL marches. It should go without saying that if these claims are true, this is despicable. The problem is that however vehemently EDL staff deny these charges, people will always disbelieve them for the reasons mentioned above. They can't win.



With so much negative publicity and no apparent benefits from their existence, the obvious question is: Who is running the EDL? And to what purpose?

Sections of the left would claim the group is either a front-group or a militant section of the BNP or NF,  often citing a few examples of far-right personnel who have joined the group. I think that's rubbish. The BNP have worked a long time to distance themselves from the 'football hooligan' image and have nothing to gain from  setting up a group that achieves little more than a bunch of bad publicity. BNP Chairman Nick Griffin has also publicly criticised the group ins strong terms.

I think two far stronger possibilities exist. First - the EDL is run by a political party or person in a position of wealth or power on the left. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's simply a matter of realpolitik. The notions of patriotism, anti-Islam and groups like the BNP have been on the rise in recent years. Far-left groups have attempted to silence them and waves of politically correct politicians have attempted to stereotype them. For a long time it worked. But slowly society is waking up to the fact that opposing Islam is not racialist and patriotism is not inherently evil.

What better way to smash the growth of such sentiment than creating guilt by association? If you're against immigration or militant Islam you're just like those stupid hooligans marching and screaming in the street. In other words, you're a Fascist. And Fascists worked with Hitler.

The second possibility is that the EDL are a group designed to further split the right wing vote. After the BNP won a seat on the London Assembly, the government set about using new legislation to try and bankrupt the party, to whoops of delight from the "anti fascist" far-left. That failed. The idea of a party similar to the BNP in its message but at loggerheads with each other seems a perfect way to split votes and weaken the enemy. Again, if this sounds like conspiracy talk to you, ask yourself: what do you call it when a government grants itself new powers to bankrupt an opposing political party?

The other possibility is that the EDL is run by a coalition of far-right groups with the aim of creating fear and anxiety in certain areas for the purpose of enjoying violence and aggression. This is possible, but the level of funding, organisation and support seems to be out of their league.

Whatever the truth of the EDL, I want their well-meaning members - of which I'm sure we have many - to consider this: there is a good chance that the EDL is actually doing harm to every cause you stand for. 

Leftists love nothing more than kidding themselves that nationalists of any type are stupid, gullible and inarticulate. It helps them to kid themselves they are smart. The government (any of the big three parties) love to portray opponents of immigration as uneducated, violent people, and the small proportion of Muslims who are militant love to portray EDL marches as 'Islamophobic' and 'hateful'


Yes, the growth of Islam in the UK is a massive concern. Yes, immigration (but not immigrants themselves) probably is a threat to our identity and way of life. Yes, political correctness is a cancer. And yes, the government have almost certainly encouraged all these things at the expense of the ethnic English.  None of these facts justify support of the EDL. On the contrary, the reality of the problem is the reason why we should avoid such groups. A deeply complex problem should not be solved with a very simple yell of anger (at least, not without something else to go with it).

The real solution is this: study the problem, consider workable, genuine solutions to the problems. Decide which UK political party best suits your principles. UKIP and the English Democrats are both respected political parties with sensible policies to tackle immigration and protect traditional cultures.
Read bit more, learn about the inner workings of the political system, perhaps even become a candidate for your party. In short: tackle the enemy from within. It makes you so much harder to deal with.
One place to start wuld be the book "Saving England" by Vernon Coleman. Th ebook is short, easy to read and contains some good ideas.

EDL supporters, I repeat: if you care for any of the causes your group professes to support, my advice is to vent your passion in a very different way. The real defence of England does not lie with the EDL.

On lazy thinking and errors of logic

Did you know that all Muslims are willing suicide bombers? Or that all brown eyed people are bank robbers? Bet you weren't aware that eating food guarantees death within one hundred and fifty years?

The above statements are all of course, ridiculously untrue or in the case of the final question, deceptive in its composition. You probably caught on immediately to all three fallacies because they are purposely outrageous. Yet, sadly, many equally ridiculous errors of logic exist in both British and Thai society and spread every day.

To use a topical example, the activities of the red shirt protesters in Thailand - whom I do not support - have met with a whole number of sweepingly ignorant remarks and media reporting in recent weeks. With the attempted assassination last night of General Sah Deang ("red commander" , someone whom I dislike and disagree with) a whole wave of ignorant remarks has spread throughout Thai Facebook groups.

Let's take a look at a typical quote doing the rounds:

"They [the red shirts] deserve it. They caused so many problems. They've used bombs themselves, they've caused great inconvenience to most people and they want to destroy the Emerald Buddha"

The prejudices and false understanding of the red shirt movement has already been dealt with by myself here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=383745141572

...so let's now take a look at some of the logical fallacies going on here.

The first, easiest to spot and yet most common error we see here is the fallacy of biased sampling in the idea that "the red shirts used bombs". This is a reference to sporadic grenade attacks on one Skytrain station and government building in Bangkok. In both cases, a maximum of two people carried out the attack and there is absolutely zero evidence suggesting red shirts did it.

But let's suppose red shirts were responsible for the attacks. The number of red shirt protesters could be estimated at, say, fifteen thousand people. So even if we imagine the four attackers were red shirts, that would account for a grand total of 0.0265 of the group. I imagine that's a similar or even smaller ratio than that of suicide bomber Muslims, criminal homosexuals or blue eyed rapists, but imagine the outcry if we tried to push any of those statements into popular thought.

So why do people think in such an erroneous way? In part, it is simply lazy thinking and received wisdom, but popular media must also take a large part of the blame. The more an incident - especially a violent or scary incident - is reported, the greater precedence it takes in our minds. Often that precedence is out of proportion with all risk. For example, during the bird flu scare, lots of Thais avoided eating chicken after about three farmers tragically died of the illness. I doubt many of those people avoided travelling by motorbike despite the three hundred or more equally tragic road deaths that month.

But other fallacies exist. The statement ( "they've caused so much disruption" ) also contains the old 'two wrongs make a right' argument that is so prevalent in Thailand these days. This argument is popular because it is basically an excuse to release the bad side that we all have inside us, that side that enjoys revenge and suffering on people with dislike. In short it says: "These people have done something to upset me, so it's OK for me to enjoy watching them suffer."

I fall for it as much as anyone else. The problem with this argument of course is that as well as losing its user any kind of moral high ground, it can work backwards. Pretty much any religious, ethnic or political group in any country can claim to have been wronged by any other at some point in time. Does that allow us to sit back and smirk when some form of revenge takes place? If we use the TWMAR argument, where does it ever stop?

The final sentence: "they wanted to destroy the Emerald Buddha" contains several errors in one short sentence. In fact, this was a total government fabrication reported widely in the media (which again demonstrates the power of the media to control our thinking). Why was this nonsense made up? The first reason is known as: "poisoning the wells".

"Poisoning the wells" is not the same as an ad-hominem attack (which this sentence also contains) because the idea of 'poisoning the well' is not only to discredit the target, but to ensure that any claim or intention stated by the target in future is considered false. In our example case, this works because the Emerald Buddha is a revered building in Thailand and any attack on it would imply terrorism and a hatred of the nation.

The final error I will point out here is the appeal to authority. In the case the authority is the DSI (Department of Special Investigation) who made the claim of the attempted attack on the Emerald Buddha by red shirts. The fallacy goes like this - the DSI are specialists on crime, the DSI make a statement about the red shirts planning crime, so the statement must be true.

OK let me indulge in one more observation. I don't know the name for this error, but it is clear: "Red shirts and yellow shirts are as bad as each other". In short, because they are both political, they are both brightly coloured and both protest. Ergo, they are equally evil. This error of thinking is so obvious when laid out that I surely don't need to explain the poor logic. Yet, we hear such comments every day.



Here's a few other random examples of errors in logic or judgment. In some cases I have given examples and explanations.


1) The appeal to force.

If you don't agree with me, something scary will happen.
"If we don't use ID cards in the UK, then we won't catch terrorists."



2) Euphemisms

In my personal experience, when right wing groups are involved in any kind of conflict, it is "imperialism" "right wing violence" etc. When leftists do it its is "direct action" , "protests" "conflicts with authority" etc.

This works because usage of certain vocabulary can greatly alter our judgment of a situation.

3) Argument to false authority

Do not confuse this with the "argument to authority" which concerns someone who actually has some specialised knowledge on the topic. The false authority does not, though may pretend otherwise.

The head of the IPCC says anthropogenic global warming is real so many people believe it to be so. But this man is a train engineer, why do we allow him to make such a decision for us?


4) Lying or false sources

"The Loch Ness monster is real. It says so on the webssite I read." (that I created myself).

"It's real, I read it on wikipedia."


5) Appeal to personal charm.

"Ahisit and Obama are both young, smart looking and good speakers. Therefore, they are the best people to run their respective countries."


6) Distraction or changing the subject.

Student A: "Did you steal that money from my desk?"

Student B: "You're just saying that because you failed your exam last week!"



7) Appeal by anecdote

A favourite of British politicians and used by all three candidates in the Prime Ministerial debates. Personal anecdotes are effective because they put a personal and often lucid slant on things that can make the argument seem more powerful than it really is.

"A lot of British people are very happy about the ID cards. Last week I met a lovely, sweet elderly lady living in a small cottage who told me she wanted an ID card because....."

In the example above, the little sweet old lady can make us forget that the vast majority of people believe ID cards are wrong.


8) Argument from selective or limited experience

"Most Thai women dress like bar girls. I spent a week on Nana Plaza and that was all I saw" (selective or biased experience)

"Polish people love tennis. I met two Poles last week who bought tickets for Wimbledon" (Limited experience)


9) Weasel wording
http://www.weaselwords.com.au/


10) To be nominated by anyone who cares to do so!

Reflections on elections

So as the back-room bargaining continues, we can begin to reflect on the election of 2010. So much commentary has - and will continue to be -  poured onto the topic that I'd rather sum up my own views with a few bullet points:

1) One year ago David Cameron was the golden boy of UK politics. He was the next Tony Blair, leading the Conservatives to ridiculous leads in every opinion poll in every media channel. That the Conservatives failed to win a clear majority last week is an utter and abysmal failure on behalf of Cameron and his party. No matter how they dress it up, there is no other conclusion that can be made.

2) I worry about people in this country. How can we continue to vote for the two 'big' parties when it's so clear that they have no ideology,  no differences and in any case wield no real control over our laws?. What is the point in getting so excited about electing a government that has very little power left in the days of the EU?

3) Just weeks ago, Clegg and Cameron were slinging mud at each other in a desperate bid to finish first in the polls. Two weeks later, they are talking about running the country together. It's all about money and power.

4) Logically, the Lib Dems and Labour should have far more in common than the Tories and Lib Dems. The fact that the latter pair still want to work together should be all the wake up call Conservative voters need.

5) Is it time for proportional representation? UKIP polled over 900,000 votes yet none of those voters will be represented in parliament. The Green Party got around 200,000 votes and have an MP.

I still desperately hope Clegg will make a deal with Labour and that deal will involve a referendum on PR. (A referendum on our sovereignty is out of the question, I gather) I have zero faith in Labour and little in the Lib Dems but if the Tories get what they deserve - a fifth term as opposition - that fallout could finally finish them and allow a real party to take their place.

Whatever happens next, we face tough times with an inexperienced and unstable parliament at the helm. I wish them luck.