Britain First and the Spotlight Fallacy

I’m lucky I don’t live in a war-torn country in the Middle East. Not only because I’d be forced into a situation in which I’d either be executed by an authoritarian regime/death cult, harshly repressed by an authoritarian regime/death cult, or coerced into fighting for an authoritarian regime/death cult – but also because I’d be inexplicably lumped into the same category as my oppressors by the political dishwater of British politics – that is to say, UKIP, Britain First, the “Tory right” and their plentiful followers. The nice thing about dishwater is that you can loudly declare “Fuck off!” to it, pull the plug and watch it go down the drain. The same can’t be done with Kippers and their chums, but I’ve spent many a dark night wishing I could.

But let’s not talk about dishwater. Let’s talk about lumping in – let’s talk about the spotlight fallacy. RationalWiki describes it thus:

The spotlight fallacy (or spotlight effect) is a logical fallacy that occurs when highly publicized data on a group is incorrectly assumed to represent a different or larger group.

Simple enough, and you don’t need to be Theresa May (with her Snooper’s Charter) to know where I’m going with this. Britain First has created a political behemoth out of the spotlight fallacy, by which I mean, Britain First has primarily duped ordinary people into liking its xenophobic, nationalistic, hate-filled cesspool of a Facebook page by posting highly-sharable patriotic memes to draw people in before flooding their newsfeed with racist guff. Its posts largely consist of pictures or videos of Muslims taking part in disturbing activities or committing horrible atrocities like marching through the street and rioting in Sweden, never mind the fact that the latter is actually a video of PKK supporters (Kurds) clashing with Turkish protestors and Swedish police, not just “Muslims rioting” – this fact is made more bitterly amusing when Britain First gives implicit support to Kurds fighting “Islamists” in London by posting this video. If you value the truth in any way, it’s worth taking anything Britain First posts with a pile of a salt and spending at least two minutes on Google making sure you’re not being tricked.

But I digress.

Britain First’s true believers engage in the spotlight fallacy all the time, by focussing on the terrifying/frustrating/disturbing actions of some people who follow Islam and generalising those beliefs and behaviours onto the entire Muslim population. Their “power” comes from associating the worst aspects of humanity with Islam as a whole, which is why Britain First’s response to the coverage of Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder bewilders me so much:

Screenshot 2016-06-17 13.16.52
Isn’t it disgusting how some people will exploit a tragedy caused by one person in an already emotionally charged political situation to smear an entire group of society and stir up hatred and tension?

This headline, and a lot of the coverage of the tragedy, focusses on the allegation that the attacker, Thomas Mair, shouted “Britain First!” as he attacked Jo Cox. Desperate not to be tarred with the same brush as just one fanaticBritain First has since angrily defended itself on social media, with its followers asking for the same kind of understanding and common sense that they’ve denied to Muslims, immigrants, state benefit recipients, left-wingers, Remainers, politicians, etc. It really is something to see Britain First supporters use arguments like this:

Screenshot 2016-06-16 15.25.03
Without a trace of irony.

While others continue coming out with crap like this:

Screenshot 2016-06-16 16.02.41
A glorious return to form.

Yes. Some of these people would literally rather believe that it was a Muslim pretending to be part of Britain First in order to incriminate the group than an actual real life non-Muslim who shouted “Britain First” or “Put Britain First” while they attacked a principled MP who stood up for the rights of minority groups, refugees, the disabled, and the poor, and whose voting record in Parliament contains everything that the Far Right hate.

Perhaps the attack was apolitical. Perhaps Thomas Mair didn’t shout anything at all and really did lash out at random. Maybe, just maybe, Thomas Mair was a covert Muslim trying to shut Britain First down, but this Muslim version of Thomas Mair would still be one man, acting on his own, for his own reasons – be they psychological or political, representing nobody else but himself under the umbrella of a label that covers a far more diverse set of beliefs than can be contained in just one person.

In the coming days, Britain First’s supporters would do well to consider that.

Tell me that Regressive Leftists like me will be the first to be thrown off of roofs or whatever it is you mouth-breathers think is going to happen when “the Muslims take over” Britain @camerondechi


The Orlando Shooting Is A Reflection of the American Psyche, not Radical Islam

The deadliest mass shooting in American history. Orlando Pulse, “the hottest gay bar in Orlando.” 49 LGBT people killed, 53 wounded; countless more traumatised, scarred for the rest of their lives, terror-struck by the sound of a firework, made restless by a shift in the shape of a shadow, made victims again at every mention of a gun, by the next inevitable mass shooting, by every gun-toting Liberty lover whose solution is “more guns”, who’ll rally against mental illness or the socialists in the White House, but not against the cancer that has long since turned America into a hospice for its most vulnerable citizens. They live in fear of death, without care, without dignity, only a omnipresent dread – often justified quietly by the rants of politicians or the disdain of strangers – but sometimes manifesting violently, angrily, as rape, as assault, as death.

In this attack, that LGBT people are right to fear for their safety should become undeniable. Assailed by “religious freedom” laws, by laws that pre-empt local protections, by laws restricting their freedom of movement, their rights to a stable home, to stable employment, to use a fucking bathroom. These are laws protected and enacted by so-called social conservatives, who whip up a concession of moral panics and hatreds, blind in their bigotry to the damage they do, even when it visits – naked and grotesque and terrifying – upon their fellow Americans in a scene like this: in the LGBT community’s memory it will forever be a harrowing tableaux, for the conservatives just another excuse to grandstand; to appear tough – and just look at the farcical way they do it.

“Really bad shooting in Orlando,” tweeted Donald Trump. “Praying for all the victims and their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart, and vigilant?” And then, a few hours later: “Is President Obama going to mention the words radical Islamic terrorism?”

This coming from a man who refuses to identify the victims as LGBT; the site of the attack as a gay bar; the catalyst for this cataclysm as the sight of two men kissing – and there are people who will think of that scene and wince at the thought. The same people who support “traditional marriage”. The same people who support “the safety of women in bathrooms”. The same people who support correctional facilities where gay men are electrocuted until a hug from their own father will make them weep. The same people who believe Michelle Obama is a man. Or that AIDS is God’s punishment for sodomy; that trans teenagers are confused or want to be special snowflakes; that to be trans is to be worthy of hellfire or death. Attitudes fostered and cultivated by demagogues and bigots and people who don’t know any better and people who “don’t care, to be honest” and so say nothing. Into this world was the Orlando attack born, and those who made and make it possible have no right to claim it as their own.

Donald Trump won’t identify the Orlando attacks as a hate crime, nor will Rubio, nor Paul Joseph Watson, who prefers to refer to Islam’s violence problem, not America’s bigotry problem. To address the core motivation of the shooter, Omar Mateen, would be to recognise what they hold in common with the man – their homophobia and transphobia, separated only by their means of attack – and what part they, and those like them, played in a radicalisation that knows no religion, only the fears of the ignorant and the desire to cleanse. No LGBT person will feel stood up for by these men. No LGBT person will forget the spaces they’ve been forced from by them, or the rights they have had denied. The fear they live in is not Islamic, it is endemic in all areas, thrown into the spotlight by this spectacle, but when the camera pans their lives will still be cut short out of frame, by poverty, by discrimination, by mental illness and violence, by heartbreak and ostracisation, by people who care nothing of their losses and only for their own gain.

You Aren’t Being Censored, Kiddo: A Letter to Conservatives

The “story” broke a little while ago but I’m still hearing about it, so I’ll take that as a blessing to write about it. Gizmodo recently released a report alleging that Facebook intentionally prevents conservative news from appearing in its Trending section, and the Right went nuts. Conservative news often amounts to nothing more than angry rants about Obama, trans people and Muslims by middle-aged hawks in suits (something that the world could easily do without) but still — this was an outrage! This was censorship! This was the beginning of the new Orwellian order! Wasn’t it?

No, it wasn’t.

I find it ironic that such outrage came from adherents of a political ideology whose number one goal is to ensure individuals and companies can act freely, unimpeded by political coercion or social outcry. The freedom of a baker to refuse to ice a cake with “support gay marriage” must be upheld. Ditto with a county clerk’s right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Or a state’s right to legislate against people using a bathroom because of their genitals. Or a person’s right to chase down a Black teenager and blow his face off for making him feel nervous. People who endorse these kinds of freedoms make me question whether there’s any point trying to argue with their ideology in the first place, but I’ll give it a good old-fashioned Leftist try.

Surely, going off the Right’s own ideology, Facebook has the right to censor whatever it wants, if it wants to? It isn’t state-owned, nor is it officially run for public benefit. It is a private company, beholden only to its shareholders, so there’s no obligation for it to allow conservative news — or any news at all — to trend. This whole controversy stinks of hypocrisy: if conservatives are going to demand Facebook starts running stories about cultural Marxism, degeneracy and cuckolds in its trending section then I expect to see them railing against Facebook’s removal of tits and depressing memes too. While they’re at it, they can call for Fox News to start advocating #FreeingTheNipple and taking in Syrian refugees, and tell Alex Jones to invite some of those nasty “globalists” onto his show to defend themselves for a change.

The fact is, conservatives, you aren’t being censored. You just desperately want to believe you are because the truth is too damaging to your egos: people just don’t care enough about your inane rambling for it to trend. For every “SJW” you lot run into and produce a hundred videos complaining about there are thousands of people who’d much rather watch a cat video, read about a real news story, or maybe even ignore the trending section altogether, preferring instead to use their news feed. Britain First, the infamous anti-immigrant, anti-Islam, anti-socialist, anti-gay, anti-just-about-anything-that-isn’t-straight-out-of-a-Eurasia-conspiracy-book “political party”, has over 1 million likes and hasn’t once been censored despite posting some of the most horrible gibberish I’ve ever had to see on a regular basis. Meanwhile if you’re a plus-sized model in a bikini or a naked aboriginal woman there’s a good chance you won’t be seeing the screen-side of Facebook for very long. The good thing about these cases is that they were reversed after wide public outcry, which is exactly what I would suggest conservatives do if they find themselves being unfairly censored. But because that would require the Right to repeatedly and publicly infringe on a company’s freedoms — something they are, of course, totally against — they’d rather scream “CONSPIRACY” at the whole system, rant about “freedom of speech”, and throw their toys out of the pram in the hopes that people will believe this is about fair representation, rather than another cynical exploitation of a highly dubious non-story.

Conservatives have been pushing a narrative for a while now that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, that newspapers, broadcasters, actors (often referred to as “luvvies”) and other celebrities are determined to marginalise and oppress right-wing voices. Anyone who isn’t knee-deep in conservative ideology can see this is a scare story designed to lower the standards of political discourse even further and push people into the arms of frothing right-wingers. And while stirring up moral panic over bathrooms and safe spaces is effective, the idea that Facebook is suppressing conservatives is the crème de la crème of incendiary bullshit. After all, Facebook is everywhere now, responsible for directing huge amounts of traffic to news websites and absorbing huge amounts of almost every internet user’s time. If Facebook can succumb to the liberal disease, then it really is time to get scared, and nothing seems to fuel conservative politics quite like fear and paranoia.

I won’t humour this story any longer though. If Facebook were actually censoring conservative news, most of us probably wouldn’t have heard about it in the first place, considering that story itself spread largely through the Facebook trending module. But as I’ve said, if they were, they’d be well within their rights to and for the Right to complain about it would be a full contradiction of the ideology they’re accusing Facebook of preventing them from peddling. In summary, I’ll put it like this: if a Swedish programmer can turn a game about pixellated cubes into the cultural phenomenon of the decade without spending a single penny on advertising, but a wide coalition of political thinkers can’t overcome a tiny box in the corner of a website, then maybe it’s your ideology that sucks, not Facebook’s news curation policy.

Call me a leftist fascist/flood me with cuck memes @camerondechi


5 Lies Vote Leave Have Told, Fact-Checked

The day of the referendum is fast approaching and the statements of doom are coming out from both sides. The pro-Remain warnings have been dismissed as “Project Fear” by Brexiteers, but how many of Vote Leave’s—the main Brexit group—claims are bullshit? Well, at least 5, as I am more than happy to explain.

1) Turkey is joining the EU (and this will doom the NHS forever)

Any politician that makes this claim is being highly disingenuous. Vote Leave-affiliated politicians like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove will know perfectly well that for Turkey to join the EU, it would have to adopt EU policies in 35 fields — or chapters, in EU-speak. To date, Turkey has closed just one chapter, and hasn’t even started negotiating on 20 others. It’s highly unlikely the country will ever join the EU if Erdogan continues establishing his autocracy, and even if it were, each member state would have the right to veto.

Vote Leave has attempted to dismiss the “veto” argument by highlighting David Cameron’s views on Turkish membership of the EU, but the fact is that the Prime Minister will be long gone before Turkey is ready to join, if not before EU enlargement is unfrozen in 2019.

2) EU membership costs us 350 million pounds every week

This just isn’t true. The government’s own data says as much.

InFacts calculates that the cost of membership is actually £120m a week, or £6.3bn a year, after taking the rebate, money sent to us from Brussels, and EU aid spending into account.

To put this in perspective, the deficit last fiscal year was £76bn. Take that as you will.

3) The money reclaimed from leaving could be used to save the NHS

This claim operates under the assumption that our economy wouldn’t take a hit post-Brexit, bringing the “cost” of EU membership (which still isn’t as high as Brexiteers think it is) back to us with no losses. There’s no reason to think this is true, as various economists, institutions, politicians, and think tanks keep saying, but suppose it was. Vote Leave campaigners have no ability to influence government policy, and it’s doubtful that the politicians connected to Vote Leave — Boris, Farage, Gove, etc. — have suddenly become enthusiastic supporters of increased state spending.

4) 5.23 million more EU migrants will move to the UK by 2030

This figure relies largely on Turkey joining the EU in 2020, which it won’t.

The claims also assume Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia will join the EU, and these countries are unlikely to close the 35 chapters by 2020 either.

5) EU migrants are putting the NHS under strain

EU migrants pay more taxes than they take out in welfare, making a net contribution of over £20bn. They’re also likely to be younger and healthier, meaning they use the NHS less, supporting our native aging population. Ultimately it’s an ageing population, poor diets, healthcare innovations and cuts to local authority budgets that put the NHS under strain — problems that won’t be fixed by leaving the EU and halting immigration.

If you ask me, Vote Leave’s reliance on baseless assertions, political opportunism and immigration-oriented scaremongering show the weakness of their case. And from the looks of the polls, a majority of people aren’t convinced either.

Follow and/or hurl abuse at me on Twitter @camerondechi

Blaming MS804’s crash on Muslims won’t help, but right-wing demagogues will do it anyway

The death of 66 people following a plane crash has been hailed by Stuart Varney as a “plus” for Donald Trump and his proposed immigration plans for Muslims. Trump’s proposals follow the long-cherished tradition of prohibiting things that might kill us, though past experience tells us people will just end up brewing terrorists in their bathtubs instead. Of course, it’s this kind of ostracisation that breeds homegrown terrorists in the first place, but it’s not all bad – the inevitable backlash will one day be hailed as a plus for comedy hacks who need to make edgy jokes about conservatives “losing their heads.”

Outside of right-wing discourse, however, this tragedy isn’t all about the Donald and I’m a little embarassed to have framed it like it was. In the Trump era it’s difficult to talk about any topic without mentioning the next führer of the United States, but in this case it’s because he represents post-9/11 hysterics so well. The thinking goes like this: any Islamic terrorist attack vindicates the view that Muslims are dangerous. Any day that passes without an Islamic terrorist attack is a fluke. If you’re wondering where White terror attacks fit into this, the explanation is simple: people like Elliot Rodger and Anders Breivik are heroes standing up against politically correct tyrannies like feminism and multiculturalism, and are nothing at all like the Muslims threatening our way of life. With this in mind, allowing more Muslims into the country is like letting locusts into your house, which is why David Cameron likes to refer to groups of asylum seekers as “swarms.”

I often feel more threatened by our politicians than I do by the omnipresent Islamic Menace, though. Radical Muslims don’t want me having the right to get married to a man, for example, but then nor does my old MP, John Redwood. The average radical Muslim is more likely to radicalise a couple more people, in a sort of strange satire on pyramid schemes, than they are to actually kill someone. Redwood, meanwhile, helps make up a government whose benefit sanctions have killed at least 40 people since 2012 without a single cry of ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Statistically I’m more likely to be killed by secondhand smoke than by a disaffected Muslim, so most of the time I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. A lot of people just don’t want to be told that most Muslims are peaceful and that we have a moral duty to help refugees, showing how easy it is to be aloof about a humanitarian crisis when you’re a) not drowning, b) not developing malaria in a refugee camp, or c) not being incinerated by £100,000 worth of explosives.

At any rate, some ISIS chargé d’affaires will come forward to claim responsibility for MS804’s crash soon and, despite the fact that the majority of our terrorists and budding jihadis are homegrown, this tragedy will inevitably be used to justify further calls to block any more refugees from entering Europe. I look forward to seeing how the government responds to more pressure to toughen up its stance towards asylum seekers. After all, in the UK it’s already politically conventional to view children as a security threat; who knows what further scaremongering will do? But I can’t blame all our shortcomings on the xenophobic press and weak-willed politicians. Our current approach to asylum seekers also has roots in old English tradition. The witch hunters of the dark ages would have been proud to see us channel their mentality: if you float, you’re a witch, but if you drown – which you will – we’re sorry, but we couldn’t take any chances.

Follow and/or hurl abuse at me on Twitter @camerondechi

The Tories have made tapping our phones and clamping down on free speech seem reasonable, if not benign

So once again we’ve been told to tighten our belts by a group of people who are collectively worth more than the GDP of Guam. I’d call the situation ironic but the only thing surprising about the Queen’s Speech is that there wasn’t more wealth on show while the government insisted on austerity. In fact, government policy at this point amounts to little more than taunting and suppressing the masses until the technological singularity comes, at which point the feckless poor and aspirational middle class alike will be melted down and used as lubricant for our robotic superiors.

All anti-rich bigotry aside, the “high wage, low welfare” mantra is about as clever as making toast in the bath, and could probably undergo some cuts itself — honestly, just “low welfare” would suffice. The average Tory voter couldn’t care less about their own wages as long as they earn more than the archetypal benefits scrounger, conclusively proving that Tories primarily feed off of bitterness and irrational responses to the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

With the EU referendum looming, David Cameron is trying really hard not to anger the 75.7% of the electorate that didn’t vote for him. So rather than driving the poor to suicide or alienating the NHS workforce, he’s chosen to restrict access to porn and put up the price of sugar instead — harmless policies from a government that really wants you on their side. On the other hand, prisoners — who can’t vote and are therefore fair game — will be exposed to true blue Tory reforms, meaning they will soon have the misfortune of being exposed to our shambolic mental health care system.

One sensible way to reform prisons to be more mental health friendly would be to reduce overcrowding by decriminalising drug use, but the only way that could happen in the near future is if Jeremy Corbyn is elected Prime Minister without being promptly assassinated by a US-sponsored militia. The reality, as we all know, is that “reform” is usually Toryspeak for “cuts”, and considering how the government has so far overseen an increase in suicides, sectioning and waiting times for the general population it’s hard to be hopeful for mentally ill prisoners. When it comes to the government’s approach to people with mental illness, it looks like they won’t be satisfied until the word “reform” is enough to induce nationwide anxiety attacks, like a morbid Pavlov’s Dog experiment.

Perhaps the reason this Queen’s Speech feels so underwhelming, besides the fact that its nastiest components have been put through a very soapy spin cycle, is that the country has felt existentially threatened by the Tories since the last election. From disability cuts to the Junior Doctors crisis, the population has lived under a sense of dread, followed by a last-minute U-turn, followed by more dread. At this point we’re just glad the government hasn’t announced plans to tackle child poverty by reforming every child in the country out of existence. Under this level of anxiety, tapping our phones and clamping down on free speech seems reasonable, if not benign. “Divide and rule” is so 2010 — governance by Stockholm syndrome is far more effective.

Follow and/or hurl abuse at me on Twitter @camerondechi