Take Me To the Movies...
I'm a huge movie buff. I haven't mentioned it before, but I have a quasi-photgraphic memory when it comes to movies. I love them. I am particularly fond of international films. I recently heard about a new movie from Muslimsgohomeland. For those of you who aren't geography buffs or cartographers, Muslimsgohomeland is located in between Belgium and Germany, bordering the North Sea.
Anyway, Muslimsgohomeland just sponsored a new movie, it's pretty good as far as I can tell. It mentions homosexuality, so it's going to be nominated for at least 3 Academy Awards, which is nice.
For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.
Awe, isn't that nice? Such sweet people, they're going to make sure you're ready first. Obviously this is the "assimibility test" that was alluded to in my most recent post on Muslimsgohomeland.
See here's the thing: The test kind of implies that it will ferret out those who would be offended to the "liberalism" found there. Which is nice, I guess. But this seems to be extraordinarily racist. I'm not sure why, it just seems like they targeting a certain group while letting white people be free....again, I can't explain why...oh, wait. I figured it out:
EU nationals, asylum-seekers and skilled workers who earn more than $54,000 per year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam.
Also, citizens of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and Switzerland are exempt.
So, there we have it. If you're white or Japanese (?) don't worry about it. We don't care about your views on homosexuality or really anything. If you want to come here, come on over. But, if you're not white...well then look, you'd better be willing to accept any and everything about us lest we send you back to that God-Awful shithole you somehow dug your dirty, Arab body out of.
They also seem to be picking on the poor. You have to pay $420 freaking dollars to take this test!!! What the hell is that? Is there an exemption for people who are poor, or does Muslimsgohomeland not care about them? Fuck the poor. That's the cost of the test. If you want to prepare for the test you have to buy the "preparation" package. What's included you ask? Well, it's the video, a CD-Rom and a book on famous people from Muslimsgohomeland. That's an extra $75. So, somehow you need to scrounge up $495 just to have the honor of being personally insulted, quite intentionally I might add, so that they can review your test score and tell you "well, sorry. I don't think it's going to work out".
And what the fuck are the Japanese doing in there? Did they sit around, look at the exemptions list and say:
"Hmm, EU, Canada, Switzerland, USA, Australia and New Zealand. Is that too obvious? OH! I got it, put Japan on there. They're liberal and rich. Just the other day I was on Rich Horny Asians.com and saw lots of Japanese girls on there. It was a good one."
Something tells me that that's pretty close to what happened.
Anyway, if Muslimsgohomeland had a Statue of Liberty, I wonder what her poem would look like:
Much like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flameIs the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exits From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide scorn; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, other lands away from me!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your happy, your wealthy,
Your select elite yearning to breathe free,
As for the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Keep these, the homeless, tempest-tost from me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
posted by Soze @ 1:29 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Well Soze, you know I am not the biggest fan of political correctness, but I'm curious as to whether you would rather the law of Muslimsgohomeland read, "and we will not allow arabs into the country unless they are rich and liberal because the poor religiously-conservative arabs have a statistically more likely chance of either blowing us up or rioting and burning down our cities or draining our resources without contributing to society." Me personally, I'd rather they worded the law in that manner so that the facts could be debated (I have no idea if it is statistically true that poor, conservative arabs are more likely to be bombers ,arsonists, or welfare cases). If it were true, however, would the people of Muslimsgohomeland be wrong for trying to defend their lives and property? In that circumstance they may be justified in the same way that most non-smokers in the 1980s didn't like to sit in smoky bars. There was no direct causal link between smoking and lung cancer (just an overwhelmingly significant statistical correlation) but people thought 'why take the chance?'.
This from the same person who just the other day was saying that Larry Summers was given a raw deal for saying something that is "essentially the truth"?
How do you justify drawing causation from the statistical distribution along a bell curve of women vs. men in the hard sciences, but see only a significant statistical correlation in smoking vis-a-vis lung cancer?
You'll notice I qualified my example with "in the 80s". If I remember correctly that was most likely even before the tobacco lobby went in front of congress to testify under oath that there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer. But that is semantics, my point is that as much as you might think their actions are prejudice and born out of ignorance (which they are), I would have less problems with them if they said what they mean and justified their fear with facts (which they might or might not be able to do, like I said, I don't know the stats).
But then what's the difference between that and between the United States doing a racial survey of the criminal justice system in America and formulating laws to protect the decent people (whites) from the criminals (blacks).
I think we can all agree that the prison system in America is disproportionally filled with African Americans...why is that? Do we as a nation require that our leaders use a statistical analysis to see who is currently the most likely group of people to commit a specific crime, and then we go out and tailor laws against those? Of course not. Here we wouldn't do that (to the extent to which it would be that obvious).
Should I assume by your line of reasoning in your argument that you are conceding the idea that poor, religiously-conservative arabs have a statistically more likely chance of either blowing people up, rioting and burning down cities and/or draining resources without contributing to society, because personally I wouldn't have ceded that point. I would bet with groups like Chechen Rebels, IRA, Basque seperatists, Columbian paramilitary groups and Congolese mercenaries that arabs likely wouldn't stand out statistically. Anyway, I agree that statistical racial profiling sucks if you are the exception to the rule. I personally dislike its applications in free society, but I think a rational, logical person could make a case for its use based on the 'ends justifying the means'.
First of all, I didn't cede that point. I was using african-americans as an illustrative group to prove the idiocy of your argument.
You're intentionally drawing false parallels.
And statistical racial profiling doesn't just suck if "you're the exception to the rule" it sucks in general. It's a huge waste of resources for a very minimal gain, not to mention illegal.
Its applications based on the "ends justifying the means" is also crap. Rarely does the end ever justify the means. Does killing someone to buy gasoline justify the fact that you now have gas in your car and can drive around?
The question becomes: When are you allowed to use that reasoning? Does the surrender of the Japanese justify dropping the atomic bomb? We're drifting into the philisophical here, but it's a good question.
p.s. I'm in Fed Hill tonight, you coming out?
Post a Comment
<< Home