Practical Objections to David Cameron's "Porn Ban"

David Cameron's plans for a default internet filter, centred around blocking pornographic material, have a host of practical and abstract issues. The abstract debate is full to the rafters, and confused through over-use of moralising and dramatic words like "censorship", so I'd like to focus on the practical problems with this latest revelation in DC's war on porn, such as stupid filters, clever kids and a general lack of evidence.

Stupid Filters

An internet filter works by searching pages for certain words or phrases that indicate this page needs to be blocked. There are already quite a few out there. O2 has one on it's 3g service and domestic ones can be bought, or come optional with routers. These examples have already demonstrated that filters are far from fool-proof, as beneficial sites on these topics will also be blocked. In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study entitled "Does Pornography-Blocking Software Block Access to Health Information On The Internet" The report found two things: that as filters become more restrictive, health sites become blocked much quicker than pornography and that LGBT and sexuality related sites were singled out in the blocking. In a country with already weak sex education and LGBT support, this filter could cut crucial support networks and drastically increase feelings of isolation. This isolation will then be augmented by the fact anybody who needs to use "immoral" phrases to describe their traumatic real-life experiences will find themselves blocked.

While the main risk of this is to sex/uality related areas, other areas such as violent material, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol and smoking are all planned for the filter. 

People in need of support for anorexia or depression on the internet will struggle, as the government is already cutting mental health services in the NHS. I realise they are trying to tackle websites such as harmful "pro-ana" blogs but they're filter won't discriminate in that nuanced way. It's the fatal combination of good intentions and not really understanding how something works.

Some may argue that that this was back in 2002 and the technology has developed since then, a report from the Open Rights Group in 2011 suggests not. They had four conclusions:

Firstly, sites are often incorrectly classified as containing objectionable material. Second, phone operators aren't forthcoming about the details of how their filtering systems work or what kind of content they block. Third, it's not clear how to report sites that are erroneously blocked. Finally, it’s difficult even for adults to turn the filtering off.

Network filters have problems discriminating, and so could block valuable and beneficial parts of online lives.

Smart People

The second problem is that on the super-information highway some people are travelling a lost faster than others, pre-dominantly the young that this bill is aimed to protect. Teenagers often understand the internet better than their parents, and react faster to changes in it. It won't be long until the young simply begin using identity-masking services like Tor to hide their activities and share this route-around with their friends via social networks. Workarounds like this will be created and shared a lot faster than changes can be made to the massive, clunky internet filter David Cameron proposes, especially if the filter affects more than just porn,

The filter may also antagonise valuable aspects of the internet. When the "dark web" child porn site Lolita City was exposed to the world, government entities struggled to shut it down. Fortunately, the hacking collective Anonymous did, removing 100GB of child porn in the process. Unfortunately, Anonymous aren't always a savoury (or sane) bunch and could easily find themselves falling on the wrong side of the filter due to ill-advised comments by members, a situation hardly conducive to further altrusim and aid by the group. Once again, good things on the internet be lost with the bad.

No Evidence That It Actually Works.

Herein lies a big problem. There is actually little (at least quoted) evidence that violent pornography leads to sexual violence and abuse. An in-depth review by Ferguson and Hartley in 2009 failed to find any meaningful link.and concluded "It is time to discard the hypothesis that pornography contributes to increased sexual assault behaviours." 

In fact, the evidence I've found suggests the opposite. A recent study in the US found that a 10% increase in internet access correlates with a 7.3% drop of reported rapes. Reported rapes have declined 85% over the last 25 years in the US. India, a country with high levels of pornography restrictions (distributing it is illegal) is notorious for brutal rapes and high gender inequality. Perhaps gender inequality and rape fantasies are the cause of violent pornography, and we're targeting the symptoms instead of the cause?

This evidence is nowhere near conclusive. A lot of rapes are unreported and even if rapes are decreasing, the reinforcing and internalising of misogynistic attitudes by porn may still be increasing the frequency of other, more casual sexist acts, such as wolf-whistling.

As should be clear by now,  I oppose the government's proposed porn filter for a whole host of practical reasons. The plan is misconceived, unfounded in evidence and could actually harm vulnerable people. It needs to be stopped. 

The Open Rights Group has started a campaign and petition against Cameron's proposals. Sign it here: 

Some Thoughts On The World's End

The World's End is a zombie film, but not as we know them. Forget the trademarks of Romero-esque zombies such as groaning and pallid skin. Pegg, Frost and Wright already covered that in Shaun of the Dead. The World's End, however has taken the essence of zombie and updated it to the modern world.

When you think zombie, you think of a literal corpse. You think of decayed skin and blank eyes. You think of death. That's ultimately what Zombies represent, but they also represent other, subtler things. The pale crowds of near identical rotting faces, shuffling and groaning in time, represents the fear of losing individuality and identity. Zombies aren't unique. All zombies have the same skills (none). Unlike Vampires or Werewolves, no part of you except your body remains, and even that goes eventually. That's what makes zombies scary.

Why else would they make us afraid? They're slow, dumb and lack the most basic of co-ordination. Unlike Vampires and Werewolves, Zombies can easily be hacked, whacked, maimed or even out-run. You don't even need any specific weapon, like stakes or silver bullets, just any blunt object will do. Zombies are tenacious, but easy to defeat. This provides hope, the most crucial aspect to any horror film. It provides hope against the collectivist threat. (Perhaps why Romero was popular in the Cold War?)

These traits, the essence of zombie, are ever present in the antagonistic "blanks" of The World's End. A group of 5 drunk, middle-aged males can defeat a whole room of these mechanical drones, whose limbs come off as easily as a zombies and will continue to writhe despite being disconnected. While they're fast and seem to have mild martial art skills, they can be beaten.

However, the fears of losing individuality have been updated. The blanks are still blanks. Sure, the automatons have the personalities of the people they replaced, as well as looking and sounding like them, but they still all give the impression of being the same. As the number of blanks grow the individual voices get lost in the masses of the connected network. The individualism is still lost, not because everyone becomes the same, but because they are all connected into a system where their individual contribution is negligible. Sounds a lot like this thing called The Internet. Hopefully, since you're reading this, you've heard of it.

The World's End is a very clever film. It adapts the spirit of the zombie (paradox?) into our modern, hyper-linked world, all the while weaving it into a story about the teenage desire to rebel and do what you want. This may just be a load of rubbish, the classic ploy of finding meaning where there was none intended. I'm not forcing my views onto you, just putting them out into this connected world we live in.

Thanks for reading.

POEM: In My Pocket

In my pocket lies my life
It is small, shiny and squar
It contains all the people, conversations and memories
That make it so dear.

I am a child of today
Meant to be free and wild
But never before have our lives
Been so filed and compartmentalised

Yet despite this organisation
I know my life is special
While they are all made the same
But through experience become unique.

I would die if my life were lost.
I'm told I should "Diversify my risk"
But life shouldn't be hunted and piecemeal
It should be wholly at your fingertips.

What should the European Union do to keep Britain in?

In Britain, there is growing discontent about the European Union. UKIP, the vehemently Eurosceptic party, are growing in members and influence, achieving second place in the Eastleigh by-election. Meanwhile, the growing momentum behind the movement for an in/out referendum resulted in the promise of one. According to a YouGov poll[1], 42% of British voters would vote to leave the EU, while 36% would vote to stay. If the European Union wishes to keep Britain as a member, it will need to persuade the British public to vote otherwise.

One strategy is to preemptively open negotiations about returning powers to the United Kingdom’s parliament, ahead of the referendum, and before Cameron asks for talks. If sufficiently publicized, this show of good faith and initiative would appeal to British voters, most of whom see the European Union as detached and bureaucratic. Another YouGov survey[2] revealed 48% of Britons believe Britain should renegotiate our relationship with Europe, and then hold a referendum. Only 22% of Britons on the other hand, want a referendum without renegotiation. There is a clear demand for renegotiation. If the European Commission were seen to supply it, rather than David Cameron, the British public may find the EU more palatable. If this negotiation were generous, it could also split the “No” vote.

The European Union initiating talks, rather than Cameron, would allow the EU to begin negotiations on their terms. This strengthened bargaining would allow the European Union to concede just a few powers, for large potential gain. Some select powers returned could greatly reduce British qualms about the European Union, especially if in areas such as the Common Agricultural Policy or immigration.

However, these two areas seem the least likely to be reformed. Pressure is actually mounting for Britain to lose it’s rebate for the CAP as more agricultural states such as Bulgaria and Romania join. The reasoning is that these countries are poorer, and so should be prioritized over Britain.

Immigration reform is also unlikely. Britain being allowed limit EU immigration could greatly harm the single market, which stipulates the free movement of labour. If the free movement of people is restricted for this country, it would be to Britain’s sole advantage.

This is why the other powerful members in the European Union are unlikely to indulge Britain and give it special privileges. There is already animosity towards Britain in Europe. As the French finance minister, Laurent Fabius, has made clear, “You can't do Europe a la carte." The European Commission cannot be seen to take too soft a stance when dealing with Britain’s referendum, which many Europeans see as a childish tantrum. The European Union has to finely balance the carrot and the stick, or face revolt on the continent.

If re-negotiation is the carrot, Britain leaving the single market could be the stick. The British press and politicians often state free movement of goods as the EU’s main advantage, and for good reason.  The EU is Britain’s main trading partner and a rise in tariffs and protectionist policies between the EU and Britain would leave Britain the worst off. The EU would find it easier to recoup it’s smaller loss trade than a solitary and uncertain Britain would. The European Union should publicize this harsh consequence were Britain to leave the EU, and maybe voters will vote “Yes” to Europe.

Many Eurosceptics argue if Britain did leave the EU, it could sign up to a similar model as Norway and retain free trade. By entering the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), Norway remains in the single market and is exempt from the Common Agricultural Policy. However, Norway also has to contribute to the EU budget, adopt most legislation and has no say in any negotiations. Between 2004 and 2009, it will have paid 1.3 billion euros for the privilege.[3] To those demanding a return of sovereignty, this would clearly be unacceptable.

According to a recent YouGov poll, 74% of Britons believe the economy is one of the most important issues facing Britain[4].  At a time of non-existent growth, downgrading and austerity, changing the single market would be disastrous for the British economy.  If the European Union made this threat a well-known possibility, it would be a signal British voters could not ignore.

If it wants to keep Britain as a member, the EU needs to convince the British people that the EU is a gain. The European Union should sweeten the current deal but also remind Britain of the stark consequences an exit could bring. Most importantly, it needs to ensure the British public understands this message, so they can vote accordingly.

---

[1] YouGov EU Referendum:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/17/public-divide-eu-narrows/

[2] YouGov EU Referendum:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/01/17/public-divide-eu-narrows/

[3]Norway and the EU

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/eu/Norway%20and%20the%20EU.pdf

[4] YouGov survey

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/02/27/update-labour-lead-10/  

Problems with the Internet as a Democratic Institution.

Internet is an extremely open, accessible institution and if added to the democratic process, could make the system more deliberative and much more direct. Government forums could be set up, citizens registering for accounts with citizen numbers and secure passwords, reading and commenting upon bills. Comments could be up-voted and down-voted in a manner similar to Reddit or YouTube. Polls could be taken easily on bills. If it wanted to be really radical and edgy, the Government could show tweets with the current debate's hashtag in the chamber. None of these ideas would be binding and force law-makers into decisions, for the Internet is not yet a wholly responsible and safe place, but it would provide clearer indications of public support and concerns.

So what are the problems?

The first is that not everybody can use the Internet because not everybody has an Internet connection. It is unfair that one citizen could have more weight over the democratic process than another (*cough* Donations *cough*). Everyone has an equal right to participate in the democratic process, and the economic means to exercise that right. Therefore, we need to get as many people an Internet connection as is possible before it can be used as a democratic institution.

The second problem is that politicians are unwilling to explore the great frontier that is the Internet. When they do explore, incursions into the world-wide-web normally result in the desire to tame it rather than listen to it. A lot of politicians are scared of engaging with the Internet, because monsters do dwell there. Politicians need to trust the Internet and accept it before it has any hope of becoming a formal, deliberative part of democracy.

However, their fear is not without reason. The Internet could easily turn round and bite this new idea on the ass. Malevolent or irresponsible groups could try and crash the forums, manipulate the comment voting or post hate and vitriol unless carefully moderated. Any moderation could then be criticised as a lack of free speech. Bills could be taken down or the polling process disrupted at critical moments. The Internet, like any other institution, is open to abuse.

This belies a greater problem with the idea, which is that people can be irresponsible, if not downright disengaged, with political participation. A lot of people don't care, providing ample ammunition for those who argue people are too irresponsible for more participation and a more direct system. I see the issue as a chicken and the egg problem. More chances to participate will foster more responsible engagement as people, but many politicians won't return that control until people actually engaged more responsibly.

This stand-off needs to be broken, and perhaps debating adding the Internet to the roster of democratic institutions will do so. I argue those in the law making process have no right to deny us this chance for participation and treat us as children. The Internet could be a direct link to public ideas and strengthen democracy. Instead of packing politicians off every four years through voting, there will be a continuous chance to engage. It will have it's problems, but if non-binding, the system could be tried without serious disaster.

Batgirl, Batman and "Batgirl Volume 1"

"We weren't always close Batman and I. Not always. He didn't want a partner, and I didn't want to be another partner. Similar name and wardrobe, sure. But I stood apart, I was Batgirl." - Batgirl Issue 6

Upon recommendation, I recently bought "Batgirl Volume 1: The Darkest Reflection", written by Gail Simone. It is wonderful to read. It delivers all you could want in a superhero comic. It is intelligent, plays on grand themes, has great artwork and kick-ass fight scenes. However, it is also notably different to what I expected of a "Bat-"  comic and hugely different to Batman. It isn't dark, but playful and humourous whenever appropriate. The grand themes it kisses aren't ones such as fear or sanity, but miracles and forgiveness. In the mean, dark streets of Gotham, this is delightfully refreshing.

Barbara Gordon (Batgirl) has re-donned her cowl and cape, having miraculously recovered from the paralysis of the legs caused by a gunshot wound in the spine (see Alan Moore's "The Killing Joke", which is also highly recommended). Within a few pages, she's fighting a well-armed zealot who believes that miracles are God's errors, taking upon himself to "fix" these "mistakes." Within a few pages, the urge to support Batgirl in her fight against this villain, and the survivor's guilt he is symbolic of, is overwhelming.

Why? Because Batgirl quickly becomes an incredibly human character. The narration is quick and constant. The reader is constantly updated with what Barbara is thinking. We know when she doubts herself, when she's happy, sad or angry at herself. She has emotions we all relate to and empathise with.  This is a sharp contrast to Batman, who is aloof, brooding and closed off. Batman doesn't talk about his feelings, not even to his closest allies. He fires off stories and facts relevant to the case at hand, but never talks about the emotionally neglected Bruce Wayne that lies (maybe?) beneath the Bat. Batman guards himself with constant, vigilant cynicism whereas Batgirl's response to life is eternal, bright optimism. This attitude fits wonderfully with her origin story as the plucky go-getter determined to fight crime, with or without Batman's approval.

This return to Batgirl's roots after the miraculous re-birth is maintained throughout the novel. She moves into a small apartment in a bad neighbourhood, the opposite to the luxury of Wayne Manor. Batgirl receives information through text alerts and researches using a laptop, not through a super-computer. Her kept company is a firebrand political activist, not swanning socialites. Simone's Batgirl makes it very clear she wants to be alone and independent. She want's to be a friend of, not a member of, the Bat-family. As a result, Batgirl feels vibrant and new, freed of the looming goliath that is Batman, and is better because of it.

Aided by detailed, up-close art, Simone creates a Batgirl that the reader empathises with and understands, but never pities. Batgirl is a character so open and honest, that the resulting comic feels almost liberating. In the dark and often claustrophobic world of the Batman, "Batgirl Volume 1: The Darkest Reflection" It is an emotional tour de force and a great collection of comics.

Woolwich

A tragedy occurred recently in Woolwich, London. Lee Rigby, a 25 year old member of the British military was murdered in broad daylight by two men shouting "Allahu Akbar." After trying to behead him with a machete and a cleaver, they then filmed a message detailing their justification as outrage at British foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. An urgent Cobra defence meeting was then commenced by leading Police, Military and Government figures, describing the attack as "terrorism."

So far, two main streams of thought have dominated the political discussion as to why this tragic event occurred. The first is the one offered by ultra-Nationalists such as the EDL, who argue this is symptomatic of the large "evil" Islamic presence in Britain. The second one stream of thought is that unjust British foreign policy in the Iraq war and Afghanistan have raised tensions and made us a target for radical islamists. Both are incorrect.

Despite what the English Defence League may tell you, Woolwich was not a result of Islam's beliefs because Islam probably played a negligible role in the killer's motivation. Whether you are a Muslim or not isn't the deciding factor of whether you are going to kill someone, as evidenced by the many peaceful Muslims not inclined to murder anybody. The man was a Muslim, but that does not mean his Islamic faith caused the murder. Islam, like any culture or part of society, has its own share of bad people who do bad things.

Nor was British foreign policy the main cause of this atrocity, with some claiming we made ourselves "a target for terrorist attacks" Whilst the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan has angered many Muslims and other protestors, nearly all have found a way to oppose the wars peacefully. The foreign policy did not inspire normally peaceful people to suddenly murder. It has just provided an excuse for the already disturbed and violent to lash out in an exceptional and horrific manner. The cause of this murder was not foreign policy, but the inability of two people to deal with it in the peaceful way the majority of others had opted for.

The Woolwich tragedy was not caused by the killers' Islamic faith, or British foreign policy. It was caused because two presumably disturbed, volatile and violent men had the psychological capacity to kill someone and found an excuse to do so.

So why have these two false narratives of faith and policy garnered such attention and ground?

The first reason is because of our selective bias. We already have views and opinions, and we will subconsciously attempt to fit events into this frame of reference "as evidence" for those beliefs. The EDL want to believe Woolwich was the result of the Islamic faith because they already believe Islam is bad and this narrative supports that view. The anti-war campaigners want to believe this is the result of the Iraq war because that narrative would support and further justify their argument. Both these groups are large and have good media exposure, meaning these narratives gain intellectual ground quickly.

The adoption of these positions is also because they offer a "lesson" that can be learned, so as to prevent them happening again. They not only provide reason for the tragedy, but a comforting message that we can take steps to stop it re-occurring. This not only assures those worrying about their safety, but also ensures the tragedy did not occur in vain, because society can "learn" from it. This is another reason these narratives have proved popular; because they provide comfort and meaning.

In the anti-Islamic case , the "lesson" is that Islam should be removed from Britain, and this will stop tragedies like this occurring again. In the case of those who blame foreign policy, the "lesson" is that we need to withdraw from our conflicts faster, apologise, and take a more conciliatory approach in future issues, this will help prevent a similar event in the future.

However, this tragedy was not caused by these two things. It was caused by two men with warped morals deciding to kill someone, with Islamic outrage at foreign policy providing a convenient excuse. It was a senseless heinous act. There was no meaning to this violence. There is no lesson we can learn from it and no easy solution. There will always be violent people in the world, with the capacity and will to murder. Tragedy doesn't need to be meaningful, reveal an insight or provide a realisation. Woolwich was an example of this, perhaps increasing it's tragic nature. The blame and responsibility lies not with Islam or the Iraq war, but with the men that committed this atrocity.

Art, Frustration, and Science for Science's Sake.

Art and Science seem to be seen as antagonistic within society. Those who are artists may see the scientist as an incomprehensible robot, devoid of imagination or flair in their quest for knowledge. The scientist may see the artist as an incomprehensible bum, devoid of utility or practical knowledge. However, both are intricately linked to our desires and ideas. Art tries to create and cultivates them. Science attempts to make them a reality.

Art is the attempt to create a secondary, preferable world, and let it rest inside the mind. It can be a relaxing world formed through music, or a heroic adventure viewed in film, or a utopian fantasy created by the written word. This needn't be every piece of art's purpose. The art needn't even have purpose. However, this formation of a secondary world of desire is one of the main and most successful purposes of art.

Science on the other hand, is an attempt to make these desires into tangible realisations. It does not create imaginary worlds for us to play with like art. Science uses natural laws and discoveries to make this world a physically improved place. It is a force for physical and technological change in this world, the creator of improved tools and improved weapons.

Science fiction is the overlap between the two. It deals specifically with desires that science can create, such as time travel, space travel and intelligent robots. It acts as both a crystal ball and a guiding beacon; revealing what science could try and simultaneously suggesting it. It is art on a scientific theme, bedazzling us with tales of time machines and super-intelligent robots, and often taking artistic license with science itself.

However, dues to some of its claims to be prophetic visions of the future, science fiction is often treated as whimsy or literary trash. When it predicted flying cars and pill-food, but none materialised, disappointment and ridicule was the result. This frustration is unique to science fiction because of the way it combines science and art. The imagination of the human species is boundless and our desires infinite, but the rate of scientific progress remains finite. Therefore the scientist and science itself is in an eternal game of catch-up, constantly trying to meet our insatiable demand for faster, better and more exciting things. Meanwhile the consumer is forever disappointed with the demands left unsatisfied. The advance of science breeds speculation and new possibilities for our mind to consider and cultivate in science fiction and art, but then means some of these desires will be left unfulfilled, and frustration is bred.

However, this frustration is a wrongful one. It is ungrateful and spoilt to accuse science of being too slow. Science has delivered incredible improvements in our quality and length of life. In 1840s England, the average life expectancy was 39. It is now 80 years. Science has done great work improving the human condition, and will continue to.

Some may argue that while science has created a better world, it has not created the more interesting and fantastic world promised by science fiction. Therefore, while the frustration cannot be justified on utility, it can be on grounds of style and incredibility. However, anybody who stops to think about the modern world will find it competes with the best science-fiction novels on every level of absurdity. A fact that Laurie Penny points out in in this wonderful essay:

“[You are absurd] reading these words through the damp flesh meniscus of the eyes you were born with, from a backlit screen skinning a device that contains more computing power than the first moon shuttle. So am I, writing them on my smartphone on a rattling New York subway train deep underground. What we’re doing right now is patently absurd, splendidly quotidian and unlikely, and yet this is how we communicate, you and me.”

Science is not only an effective tool for positive change, but a beautiful and absurd one as well.

So how do we stop this frustration? How do you stop yourself taking for granted the wonders science has given us? How do you prevent the disappointment when science doesn’t meet the expectations you had when you were a child?

The first aspect of the solution is to stop expecting that science can solve everything. Science can work the occasional “miracle” but most of the time technological advances require good human handling for society to fully benefit. Science can only compensate for human ignorance and failure so much, as anybody who has argued with staunch fundamentalists can attest. Science has improved food production to the extent there is enough food to feed everyone, but the structural inequalities and human excess of the world act as obstacles to solving world hunger. There are human faults at play as well. Before you ask, “Why hasn’t science solved this like I thought it would?” also ask, “What can I do to solve this?” One way to stop frustration at the supposed faults of science is to realise some of its faults are ours.

The second way is to not expect Science to follow the whimsy and imagination of art and science fiction, but allow it to tread its own path. Do not follow science in the hope of certain discoveries such as hover-cars and pill-food. Science is unpredictable and discovery is an untamable beast, seemingly appearing upon the whim of the universe. 

Instead, appreciate and do science for science’s sake. Enjoy science because it elegantly boils down this huge complex world into simple equation and small particles. Enjoy science because it is one of the drums to which our knowledge marches forward. Enjoy science because without it we would never adventure into the unknown void, and live in the wrongful complacency of ignorance. In the words of Thomas Huxley:

“The known is the finite, the unknown the infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the middle of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land”

Science has contributed greatly to this world and will continue to. However, the rate at which these changes come will be slow compared to the desires and ideas placed upon science. In order to avoid the disappointment and misery that will inevitably arise when some of these are left unfulfilled, we need to think about and appreciate the wonders science has already left us. Secondly, we need to realise that not all of these desires can be achieved purely through science and technological change, political and social change may be required as well. Finally, and most importantly, we need to realise that science has a function beyond tangible benefits. It is the biggest road on the quest for knowledge, and it should be walked down simply because doing so is educating and, quite often, beautiful.

"Injustice: Gods Among Us": Review

From the makers of "Mortal Kombat", "Injustice: Gods Among Us" is the polished fighter you'd expect, but set in the DC comics multi-verse. Fighters are a genre of game I've never particularly cared for; I only bought this one because of my comic book addiction. However, "Injustice: Gods Among Us"'s enjoyability goes beyond it's superhuman roster. The gameplay is solid, the campaign enjoyable but short, and the playable characters are varied but balanced.

Some of you may have noticed my use of the word "multi-verse" in the opening paragraph. This is because the central premise of the narrative is one of two universe. There is the familiar DC universe where heroes are heroes and villains are villains, mixing with an alternate universe where some heroes have revolted to establish an authoritarian world order, joined by some villains. In most other games, this would seem far-fetched, but this is no more absurd than a standard comic-book plot, and "Injustice" turns it into the fantastic. Individual bouts by certain characters can also seem forced at times through flimsy set-ups. This is worsened by the games seeming insistence of four consecutive fights for each character.

However, the four consecutive fights with characters does provide other benefits to the game. It allows the player to grow comfortable in and sufficiently experience each character by the end of the series, but also keeps it varied enough for the player to find the one best suiting his style. Knowing the campaign is the first mode inexperienced fighter players will turn to, they have made it an easing process into the game. This is important because it is something high-class fighter games so often forget. My previous experience with games such as Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat is one of endless beatings, while struggling to remember and execute painfully long combos. "Injustice" has minimised this problem systematic of fighters. While there are still teething problems for new players, they are small and require relatively little time to work through. "Injustice" is forgiving but not lax in its difficulty gradient.

The gameplay is solid. There are sufficient combos for varied combat, and the combos seem to be able to link together for the more experienced (although first-hand knowledge is lacking!). There is also a good mix of character builds to use, as expected from a roster of 24 playable characters. Players can opt for fast but weak fighters such as The Flash and Catwoman, or strong but slow ones like Bane, and quite a few points inbetween. Initially there seem to be no over-powered characters that dominate, although they may be discovered as players explore each one. As expected of fighter games, each character has a "super-move" unlocked by achieving combos and taking damage. In true DC style, most of these are suitably epic. Whether it be Superman piledriving someone from the upper atmosphere or Batman splattering people with the Batmobile, immense satisfaction is derived each time, as well as massive damage. They could be even more beautiful if the graphics had been brought up to scratch with titles like "Tomb Raider" and "Forza 4."

However, these are not the only quirky elements of the combat. Seemingly innocuous everyday objects can be used to evade your opponent, as throwable objects, or exploding traps. When sets of characters react differently to every object, half of the fun in each map is finding out what there is and how to use it to your advantage. "Injustice" also has a system called clashing, where players can wager portion of their "power bar" to either gain health or deal some extra damage. The gains tend to be small, leaving it feeling more like a gimmick than a game-altering addition. However, there are a few dramatic (and occasionally amusing) dialogues between characters, and a big boom, redeeming it slightly.

A final fun aspect is the multiple layers on maps, that players can "transition" between. Get your opponent to a "transitionable"end of a scene, and you can whack them down (or up) a layer, normally through lots of damaging objects. On one map they can get hit by a train and on another be pushed through a demonic jail. Unfortunately, they are such an innovative and exciting addition to the gameplay that you wish more time had been spent developing them. When the mortal and humble Green Arrow punches Superman a kilometre and through several walls, the sublimely surreal becomes ridiculous. This could easily have been fixed by tailoring the initial part of the sequence to each fighter, but seems to have been left as an oddity. Fortunately, this is a small lapse of detail in a game otherwise superb.

There are also sufficient challenges to stop "Injustice" falling into the repetitive pattern some fighter games can fall into. While the campaign is slightly shorter than most, the S.T.A.R Labs mode place extra criteria on battles and mini-games, creating a fresh challenge for those left hungry. Numerous "Battle" modes also place you against difficult odds, and against strings of opponents. These, combined with the multiplayer, give the game much more variation and play-time than you would initially expect.

Despite the mediocre graphics and occasional ham-written scene, "Injustice: Gods Among Us" is one of the few fighter games I enjoy playing. It is challenging without being harsh, and tries to ease beginners into the genre. It is challenging, quirky, and genuinely fun to play. In a world where high-quality superhero games like "Batman: Arkham City" and "The Amazing Spider-man" are rising, "Injustice" earns its place between them.

Should you play this game? Yes

Score: 8/10.

The Seven Class System

The number of classes in society is increasing exponentially. In the 1800s there were the two classes of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. In the 1900s, there were three classes; upper, middle and working. Now a study by the BBC has revealed there are now 7 classes.

Obsession with class has long been a part of the British psyche, as shown in our political discourse. There are calls on the left for Labour to begin re-representing the economic interests of the working class. Meanwhile, the centre ground of politics has a tradition of championing "the squeezed middle."

Another reason class is so dominant in our political discourse, leaving aside cultural compulsion, is it's effectiveness as a rhetorical tool. If you can quickly summon the image of a vast group, with reasonable economic similarities and shared concerns, that is a valuable tool in powerful speech making. "The squeezed middle" carries momentum much further than "People who earn between £x and £y." Secondly, given Britain's history of class consciousness, the phrases themselves carry power. These pillars of reference can, not only keep a speech going through snappy labels, but emotionally charge it as well.

One need only look at the BBC's proposed new class system to see it is unfit for purpose. "Emergent Service Workers" is a long, flaccid phrase. Meanwhile, "Precariat" tries to presumably combine "precarious" and "proletariat." This attempt to appropriate marxist language just sounds absurd given its lack of grounding in marxist historical context and tradition. Any politician who used these phrases would be laughed out of the pulpit.

If there is one advantage going for this new class system, that is its more holistic approach to class. An increasing tendency by society to judge class on factors other than the economic combined with a greater mixing of values and interests between economic classes, means the boundaries between some classes are blurred if existent. By taking into account "cultural and social capital" as well as the traditional "economic capital," the BBC has been able to reinstate boundaries between an increased number of classes. Now your class is determined by areas such as your internet use, eating habits and the music you like as well as your economic status.

However, given it cannot perform as rhetoric like its predecessor, what is the point of this improved accuracy? It seems to exist only to be a means of identification. Unlike the three class system, which we could evaluate on it's usefulness elsewhere as well as it's accuracy, the only criteria for this one is it's accuracy in providing identity.

On this front all class systems fall down. Instead of introspection, the identity is derived from the economy and culture surrounding us, referenced from society and our position within it. When asking "Who am I?" this system responds by saying "You are a qualified accountant with a partner and 3 kids, who likes indie music, uses social media, and has income of x pounds" This answer of who we are resembles describing somebody through a narrow window. It is defining yourself through the third person. Our identity becomes the superficial things we outwardly project, not the way we think or our emotions. We have a definite outline of identity but no stuffing to be within it.

The ability of this class system to aid our understanding of ourselves is extremely limited, nor is it a system that can effectively use these outlines in rhetoric. It is a system invented merely to indulge the British obsession with class.

Problems With Pascal

There is an old philosophical argument for belief in God, formulated by mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal, called Pascal's wager. It has been doing the philosophical rounds for years, partly because it is a very original argument. Instead of trying to convince us that religion is true, it tries to convince that religion is a worthwhile thing to do. It's emphasis is on the utility of religion, not the truth.

Pascal's argument begins on the very uncontroversial premise that we do not know, without doubt, whether God exists or not. Therefore, we must choose between belief and non-belief because we do not know for certain. As Pascal says:

'You must wager. It is not optional. Which will you choose then? Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all, if you lose, you lose nothing.'

Pascal acknowledges this is an odd reason to believe, but with foresight, responds to his critics that God will know the difference between an opportunistic and a true believer. His response is that committed opportunists eventually condition themselves into true belief.

'Follow the way they began, by acting as if they believe, taking the holy water, having more masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe and deaden acuteness.'

His argument can be summarised as followed. Once you have converted yourself, you will reap all the rewards of belief, provided you are right; an afterlife in Heaven in eternal pleasure etc. If you are wrong, you lose nothing but what Pascal dismisses as parasitic pleasures, like the television you watch on sunday morning. On the other hand, if you don't believe, and you are wrong, you are sentenced to eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell. In short, it's safer to believe than not to believe. You might as well just believe.

However, Pacal's argument only takes into account private utility; private advantages and disadvantages. In doing so, he makes a fatal error; treating religion as a private personal thing rather than an institution across society. In order to truly assess the wager, we need to take into account the societal advantages of disbelief and the disadvantages of belief.

For example, dissenting thought from religion, and not believing, has brought huge gains to society. Ideas from thinkers such as Frederick Nietzche and Karl Marx were the result of dissenting from religion. The questioning of religious doctrine has brought us many scientific ideas, such as evolution. While the personal benefits of disbelief may be negligible, the societal gains can be significant. Therefore Pascal's wager becomes much less of a one-sided no brainer, and more of a value judgement.  A judgement where somebody decides which is more important, their prospects, or society's prospects. Am I willing to risk eternal damnation instead of eternal bliss, for these advantages to society?

Religion also has negative effects that we can take into account. I don't mean to argue that religion is bad, just some aspects of it are. Religion does have good effects on society, but for brevity I shall play devil's advocate in response to Pascal's one sided gambit, and ignore these. One need only look at the endless wars, murders and morally abhorrent things committed in the name of religion to see the negative effects it can have on society. Religion could provide eternal bliss for believers, but if this belief causes people to act badly, the disadvantages to future generations and living conditions could outweigh these individual benefits.

Pascal's view of religion as it effects the individual is too narrow for the wager to be accurate. Religion has many effects on society and future generations, which should also be taken into account. However, once you do this, it becomes less one-sided.

There is another problem with Pascal's narrow view in that it does not account for the occurrence of many different religions in society, each with their own version of god. You either have to know which god is correct, in which case the wager is invalid because it is about acting in the face of uncertainty, or you have to guess which god is correct. In this instance, the wager loses it's effectiveness because your risk of going to hell, even if you believe in a god, increases. You're more likely to pick the wrong god, if any of the religions have got it right. There is an episode of the Simpsons where Homer Simpson, of all people, elegantly expresses this sentiment:

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church, we're just making him madder and madder!"

If even Homer Simpson can point out flaws, Pascal has a problem.

Captioned Art and Art itself.

In major galleries, next to the artwork itself, there will almost always be a small caption explaining it. To clarify, I do not object to captions that state technical information such as the materials used or the date it was made. My worries concern the captions that interpret the art for you, explaining the themes and ideas contained within it. My worry is also that those captions are but one symptom of a central problem. A tendency for people to accept arbitrary decisions about what art is and what "good" art is. Captions are just a small and seemingly inoffensive part of this issue, and useful for illustrating the point.

In my opinion, the captions stifle free thought. Art is a subjective thing, and often many different interpretations can be gleaned from the artwork, and by many different people. However, by putting one interpretation on paper and in an official setting, it is raised above the rest. The unfortunate result of this is that the art may be hardly discussed outside the parameters set by the caption. People may even read the caption before the art and then look at the art with pre-conceived ideas, searching for how the art confirms the placard, rather than looking with an open mind.

I, personally, also object to captions because they enable what I would call "bad" art. While this not my only criteria for judging art, I believe that a lack of clarity is a "bad" property for expressive artwork to possess. If the artist wishes to convey an idea with little room for interpretation, they should do it in the art, not in the caption. If the artist are not skilful enough to convey their message in the art, perhaps they should tackle easier themes, or be content with producing what I would call "bad" art.

If the artist wishes to create artwork that leads to different interpretations and debate then captions can defeat this purpose, as they glorify one interpretation over the rest. If the artist wishes to express an idea through the medium of art, with little room for interpretation, then they should use clear art, not concise captions. Finally, if the artist is producing art for themselves, it follows they do not need a caption to explain it to themselves. If artwork is an attempt to fulfil any of these three major functions, captions are redundant or harmful.

Why then, do we have captions?

I believe it is because there is a lack of confidence about art. People do not know the right answer when it comes to art. This is because there isn't one; art is subjective. The problem is that captions imply there is a "correct" interpretation.

However, captions are not the only thing that treat art as something prescribed. I believe it is a problem systematic in the way art has been traditionally presented.

We live in a world filled with professional art critics making arbitrary judgements. As a result, people simply accept the word of those "better informed" and accept they just don't understand "good art." As a result, artists nowadays are allowed to put mundane objects such as an unmade bed into art exhibitions. These objects, which are completely innocuous if you ignore the gallery setting, have been accepted as "good" art by the majority, because the art intelligentsia and art critics have put it into a gallery. The majority do not necessarily understand the art, but accept it as "good" art because it is in an exhibition.

This definition of "good" art is clearly absurd. I think there is a better one, so at risk of repeating the same tedious arguments, I ask the question.

Question: What is art?

Answer: Whatevert you fucking want it to be.

Whatever you feel is art, is art to you. I don't want to ban galleries or placards, but they highlight an ugly arbitrary streak in the beautiful world of art. "Good" art is not just in galleries and decided by hidden arbitrary people. You can decide what is good art for you, and what is not. You can decide why you feel something is art, and why it is not. This has never been easier. The Internet offers a huge variety of images at the touch of a screen, ready to explore. If you see a crooked lamppost swaying in the breeze and feel it is artistic enough, it can be art to you. Other people may think it mundane and ugly, and so it won't be art to them. This isn't hiding behind subjectivity. There is still the same room for discussion if this philosophy is adopted. Absolute statements like "This is good art because..." or "This is art because..." simply change into "This is art, to me, because...." We change from debating absolutes to discussing feelings.

Art is whatever you want it to be.

However, art is also subjective, so feel free to disagree.