Author Topic: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality  (Read 7466 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #75 on: March 06, 2018, 10:26:23 AM »

Offline bdm860

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4124
  • Tommy Points: 1805
If people refused to watch movies that are obviously disrespectful Hollywood wouldn't make them. For example Matt Damon recently played an Asian in Great Wall or something.  Nobody called for boycotts or anything. It's up to consumers just as much as Hollywood.

Anybody remember "Mooney on movies" from Chappelle's Show, first thing I thought of when reading this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trtyzv00Kos

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #76 on: March 06, 2018, 10:34:09 AM »

Offline Erik

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 698
  • Tommy Points: 126
  • The voice of reason
  When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something  needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.

Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.

As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.

Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.

I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism.   As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion.  There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything.  And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea.  How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!

While you haven't explicitly stated government involvement, "something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own" is leftist anti-capitalistic rhetoric. You're about to propose either government intervention or regulations placed by event leadership to give disproportional votes to designated disenfranchised people. In a fair capitalistic market, the only relevant color is green. It sees no other color, lifestyle choice, or pronoun. If you are an ideologue, you must either find a very specific niche targeting other similar ideologues, or you will go out of business. Therefore to run away from the market is to impose biases. You want to pick the winners. Two questions: "Who would pick?" and "How would that ever be fair?" For example (and not to go too far off topic, but it's related): I hear it all the time that Obama saved the car industry and the banks. No he didn't. He picked a winner. Was it fair that GM got 40 million more than Chrysler? What about smaller business that felt the effects of the recession but got nothing? You can't just have the government hand companies a bunch of money whenever they screw up.  For a period in time, these companies had to answer to the government. That's very similar to communism.

My suggestion: If you want the Oscars to be more fair, run TOWARDS the fair market: open up the voting to the public. That way maybe it doesn't take DiCaprio 20 years to win an Oscar.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #77 on: March 06, 2018, 04:59:21 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12760
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something  needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.

Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.

As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.

Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.

I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism.   As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion.  There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything.  And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea.  How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!

While you haven't explicitly stated government involvement, "something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own" is leftist anti-capitalistic rhetoric. You're about to propose either government intervention or regulations placed by event leadership to give disproportional votes to designated disenfranchised people. In a fair capitalistic market, the only relevant color is green. It sees no other color, lifestyle choice, or pronoun. If you are an ideologue, you must either find a very specific niche targeting other similar ideologues, or you will go out of business. Therefore to run away from the market is to impose biases. You want to pick the winners. Two questions: "Who would pick?" and "How would that ever be fair?" For example (and not to go too far off topic, but it's related): I hear it all the time that Obama saved the car industry and the banks. No he didn't. He picked a winner. Was it fair that GM got 40 million more than Chrysler? What about smaller business that felt the effects of the recession but got nothing? You can't just have the government hand companies a bunch of money whenever they screw up.  For a period in time, these companies had to answer to the government. That's very similar to communism.

My suggestion: If you want the Oscars to be more fair, run TOWARDS the fair market: open up the voting to the public. That way maybe it doesn't take DiCaprio 20 years to win an Oscar.

Sounds like you know more about pure capitalism than I do, so I won't argue the point other than to wonder whether there is something in between pure capitalism and "leftist" that still contain tenets of capitalism and doesn't require pure capitalists to shut-down the discussion.   I may be wrong, but I don't see myself as leftist or anti-capitalist.  But I do accept that there is role for some central governing in my ideal world and that there is a role in a capitalistic (not capitalist) society for decisions made based on values other than money.

And in the case that I am wrong about there being leeway for impurity in capitalism without being anti-capitalist, I'll just say -- can't we have a conversation without calling out different  views with extremist labels?  Probably helps no one to do that -- and it's likely we do live in a society in which most of us rest comfortably somewhere in between the extremes. 

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #78 on: March 06, 2018, 05:18:33 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 698
  • Tommy Points: 126
  • The voice of reason
  When bias, or nepotism, cronyism,... become the most likely explanation for disproportionaliy, something  needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own.

Sure, if you’re a leftist that relies solely on the government to fix all of your problems. Instead of running to the government, run to fair markets. In a fair market, if there is discrimination, that entity will not survive in the long run because a competitor will snatch up the disenfranchised individuals.

As far as society’s bias towards white actors, if it’s true, it means that black actors have to work harder or make movies that aren’t just about “black life” (any Tyler perry movie). I like Denzel and DiCaprio fairly equally (a lot). But there are far fewer Denzel’s in Hollywood and far more Anthony Anderson’s. Also subject matter for the targeted audience matters. If you’re making a movie where blacks make jokes about “white boys”, you’re expected to put off a fairly large segment of American population (your audience). Instead of focusing on changing why whites (or any customers) aren’t watching the movies, focus on making racially neutral movies targeting as many people as possible. I mean this isn’t rocket science. A movie is a product, and you have to position your product to attract as many customers as you can. Movies like inception, Shawshank redemption are racially neutral so they will target 100% of the market. Movies like Tyler perry will target 13% of the market, because they’re solely about black culture which seems to be very uninteresting to someone who has little experience with it (a white person). An all black cast means nothing to me because I’m not a racist. If they’re good and the story is good I’ll watch it. If the dialogue is 80% Ebonics that I’ll barely understand, I’ll pass. You don’t change customers you change the product.

Kind of harsh to call "leftist" and to claim that anyone has suggested anything at all about government solving this.

I promise you that it is possible to have conversations with people who have different perspectives without name-calling or marginalizing by claiming extremism.   As far as I am concerned, I think the issue is a good one to discuss because I think disproportionality tells us something about society -- not always sure exactly what and not always the same thing -- but that's the point of the discussion.  There are far fewer people that you think who actually want the government to solve everything.  And with regard to the issue that I raised here (only for discussion and not asserting firm conclusions), I never said, nor did I even suggest, anything having to do with government intervention. Actually I find the idea of government involvement in racially-balancing movies an absurd idea.  How about that -- you agree with a "leftist"!

While you haven't explicitly stated government involvement, "something needs to be done that the market will not take care of on its own" is leftist anti-capitalistic rhetoric. You're about to propose either government intervention or regulations placed by event leadership to give disproportional votes to designated disenfranchised people. In a fair capitalistic market, the only relevant color is green. It sees no other color, lifestyle choice, or pronoun. If you are an ideologue, you must either find a very specific niche targeting other similar ideologues, or you will go out of business. Therefore to run away from the market is to impose biases. You want to pick the winners. Two questions: "Who would pick?" and "How would that ever be fair?" For example (and not to go too far off topic, but it's related): I hear it all the time that Obama saved the car industry and the banks. No he didn't. He picked a winner. Was it fair that GM got 40 million more than Chrysler? What about smaller business that felt the effects of the recession but got nothing? You can't just have the government hand companies a bunch of money whenever they screw up.  For a period in time, these companies had to answer to the government. That's very similar to communism.

My suggestion: If you want the Oscars to be more fair, run TOWARDS the fair market: open up the voting to the public. That way maybe it doesn't take DiCaprio 20 years to win an Oscar.

Sounds like you know more about pure capitalism than I do, so I won't argue the point other than to wonder whether there is something in between pure capitalism and "leftist" that still contain tenets of capitalism and doesn't require pure capitalists to shut-down the discussion.   I may be wrong, but I don't see myself as leftist or anti-capitalist.  But I do accept that there is role for some central governing in my ideal world and that there is a role in a capitalistic (not capitalist) society for decisions made based on values other than money.

And in the case that I am wrong about there being leeway for impurity in capitalism without being anti-capitalist, I'll just say -- can't we have a conversation without calling out different  views with extremist labels?  Probably helps no one to do that -- and it's likely we do live in a society in which most of us rest comfortably somewhere in between the extremes.

My apologies if I sounded like I was trying to shut you down. It's hard to have an argument online without sounding like an ass or using emojis because letters don't have vocal tone.

There certainly is such a thing between a pure capitalist and leftist. The vast majority live there. I live there. A pure capitalist, which is probably best defined as an anarcho capitalist, is someone that believes that aside from a small local government to handle criminals, there should be no government. Think wild west with a sheriff and jail in each zip code, and crapping in a hole in your backyard because "Who owns the pipes?" These are basically nut jobs, in my opinion. Just as nutty to me are pure leftists such as Socialists and their much more evil cousin Communists that believe that a national government should handle almost everything. They decide how much you are paid, they decide how much you can spend on a car. If your furniture costs more than what everyone else has, you can be fined or jailed. An American Liberal is actually a pretty globally centrist position (think Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc). I used to be a liberal until the word liberal took about 80 steps to the left with the Bernie Sanders crowd. I left that crowd about halfway into Obama's first term.

The great debate of all time has been how much involvement does the government need to have? The answer should, in my opinion, ALWAYS be "as little as possible." I don't think the Oscars should be regulated. It already IS regulated because only a select group of individuals are allowed to vote. If you open up the voting to paying customers who spend money to watch the movies, you're much more likely to get accurate winners based on merit, not skin color or agenda. That's why when you go on Rotten Tomatoes, the user review is much better than the critic. I don't really want to know the PhD review of a movie. Was it fun to watch or not?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:23:38 PM by Erik »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #79 on: March 06, 2018, 05:32:03 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2180
  • Tommy Points: 266
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error in a massive budget.

The Mark Wahlberg/Michelle Williams story gave us insight into how production companies are making decisions. I love Wahlberg, but that guy isn't worth more than a lot of actors out there. I'd be shocked if the amazing thespian Gronk isn't offered big time money. And good for him. He deserves what the market gives him. That doesn't mean that companies can't work to be better at including more job entrants from all groups of people. All sorts of companies tailor their services to select groups. I'm not mad that the hat manufacturer came up with the idea to sell a pink Red Sox hat.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:42:18 PM by green_bballers13 »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #80 on: March 06, 2018, 05:36:41 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35297
  • Tommy Points: -27792
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #81 on: March 06, 2018, 05:44:08 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2180
  • Tommy Points: 266
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.

Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 05:50:05 PM by green_bballers13 »

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #82 on: March 06, 2018, 05:58:53 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8176
  • Tommy Points: 810
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.

Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #83 on: March 06, 2018, 06:12:30 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2180
  • Tommy Points: 266
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.

Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.

Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.

People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.

What is the source of the fear?

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #84 on: March 06, 2018, 06:34:58 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10556
  • Tommy Points: 1179
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.

Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.

Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.

People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.

What is the source of the fear?

Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.

Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.

What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #85 on: March 06, 2018, 06:58:53 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35297
  • Tommy Points: -27792
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Does it do women and minorities good to guarantee them slots even if they don’t deserve them? Some would argue that that creates a stigma that all beneficiaries of racism / sexism are undeserving (Clarence Thomas has talked and written about this extensively).

And we’re not talking about 75% of the population (or 60% - 62% of the population, minus whatever percentage of “White Hispanics” there are.). Rather, we’re talking about the less than 1% of the “diversity” population working in Hollywood. What about those movie-goers of all races and genders who want to see the best actors cast in the best roles with the best supporting cast and crew? Do they benefit when “best” becomes “best minority / woman we could find”?

Should this system also apply to the military? First responders? Engineers? Professional athletes?

Quotas are illegal. That’s settled. Now, let’s get rid of all the race- and gender-based discrimination that is contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).

« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 07:03:59 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #86 on: March 06, 2018, 07:13:11 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2180
  • Tommy Points: 266
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.

Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.

Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.

People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.

What is the source of the fear?

Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.

Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.

What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.

I just found the transcript for her Oscar's statement: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/transcript-frances-mcdormand-delivers-the-2018-oscars-speech-of-the-night/

No mention of a quota system.

I then saw her comment after the event: “I just found out about this last week,” she shared. “There has always been available, to everybody that does a negotiation on a film, an inclusion rider, which means that you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting but also the crew. And so the fact that I just learned that after 35 years of being in the film business… we’re not going back. So the whole idea of women trending? No. No trending. African Americans trending? No, no trending. It changes now. And I think the inclusion rider will have something to do with that.”

Is this what you think a quota system is?

She's saying that there's a negotiating tool available for actors to demand for diversity. There's no governmental enforcement mechanism to say that the production company has to hire some cool guy actor because he has an inclusion rider. They can choose to ignore his contract demand, or accept it. It is the actors (laborers) themselves, not the government, that is looking to create change. It is a market-based approach. There's no legislation or punishment levied.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2018, 07:19:35 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2180
  • Tommy Points: 266
Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Does it do women and minorities good to guarantee them slots even if they don’t deserve them? Some would argue that that creates a stigma that all beneficiaries of racism / sexism are undeserving (Clarence Thomas has talked and written about this extensively).

And we’re not talking about 75% of the population (or 60% - 62% of the population, minus whatever percentage of “White Hispanics” there are.). Rather, we’re talking about the less than 1% of the “diversity” population working in Hollywood. What about those movie-goers of all races and genders who want to see the best actors cast in the best roles with the best supporting cast and crew? Do they benefit when “best” becomes “best minority / woman we could find”?

Should this system also apply to the military? First responders? Engineers? Professional athletes?

Quotas are illegal. That’s settled. Now, let’s get rid of all the race- and gender-based discrimination that is contrary to the plain text of the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection).

I still don't get this argument. People like to run to the example where a major production company cannot find a qualified woman or minority to fill a role. Most most qualified? I don't know if companies today are monitoring whether they hired the best available actor in the acting universe. If Daniel Day Lewis is busy, we might not get the most qualified actor. There have been several castings that make people scratch their head.

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2018, 07:26:12 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35297
  • Tommy Points: -27792
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Asking for an inclusion rider isn’t racist.  I fail to see this point of view. White males have all the power and obviously have so much power they feel completely safe sexually harassing women in Hollywood.  Let’s take some of that power away by giving jobs to other races and genders so white men don’t have complete control in Hollywood because clearly that hasn’t been working well since the inception of movies.

Denying someone employment based on their race is by definition discriminatory.  Attempting to right one type of discrimination with another is every bit as bad as the original discrimination and will lead nowhere good.

I get that we should strive to create a world where there is equality, I want that too.  But come on folks, use your brain a little and take the time to actually think about what you're saying.

This doesn't make sense. How does a complex history of power struggles by women and minorities compare to any potential loss that a white guy might have in 2018. This is assuming that the demand for labor in the movie business is static. Good money will go to finance good projects, regardless of how many other movies are out there. A young black kid and a woman getting hired for some small role in a big production is barely a rounding error.

They don't need to make quotas. McDormand didn't say they needed quotas. Stacy Smith is a proponent of an inclusion rider (something I did not know about 48 hours ago). She says: "tertiary speaking characters should match the gender distribution of the setting for the film, as long as it's sensible for the plot," (https://annenberg.usc.edu/faculty/communication/stacy-smith)

I think it is interesting to see the fear that such words strike in people. It's almost like some are making stuff up about quotas and the scary government taking our rights when valid concerns about equal representation are addressed.

Besides, why do people want to see more guys than women on screen?

Right, more diversity that makes sense for the setting and plot makes sense.

Shoe-horning in “diversity” characters, miscasting actors / actresses, and hiring less qualified cast and crew to meet quotas — which is the implication of McDermond’s post-Oscars comments — doesn’t do anybody any good.

You mean, beyond the women and minorities (probably 75% +/- of the population)?

Also, did she use the term "less qualified"? That was not my interpretation.

Whether you liked it or not, a lot of young people were inspired by the Obama presidency. The idea is that kids should have role models. I don't mind watching women and minorities if there can be some type of social gain.
A quota system means that at some point you put skin color or gender above level of qualification.

Maybe I'm wrong, so please inform me as I feel like I'm taking crazy pills: I don't know where the quota system came from. I haven't seen any reference to "inclusion rider" and "quota system" from anything coming close to a neutral website.

People are creating this notion of a quota system as a last line of defense against initiatives that are trying to expand the available qualified labor pool in the movie business.

What is the source of the fear?

Did you ever bother to read McDormand's statement, or are you just going to pretend it never happened? She literally said the words "demand 50% diversity". That is by definition a quota.

Also, I don't fear diversity. I embrace it.

What do I detest, is this concept that there must always be an equal outcome. If there are 10 jobs available and 8 of the best 10 applicants were of a particular race/gender, it is not discriminatory if the end outcome is that 80% of the workforce is of a singular race/gender. That's just common sense.

I just found the transcript for her Oscar's statement: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/transcript-frances-mcdormand-delivers-the-2018-oscars-speech-of-the-night/

No mention of a quota system.

I then saw her comment after the event: “I just found out about this last week,” she shared. “There has always been available, to everybody that does a negotiation on a film, an inclusion rider, which means that you can ask for and/or demand at least 50 percent diversity in not only the casting but also the crew. And so the fact that I just learned that after 35 years of being in the film business… we’re not going back. So the whole idea of women trending? No. No trending. African Americans trending? No, no trending. It changes now. And I think the inclusion rider will have something to do with that.”

Is this what you think a quota system is?

She's saying that there's a negotiating tool available for actors to demand for diversity. There's no governmental enforcement mechanism to say that the production company has to hire some cool guy actor because he has an inclusion rider. They can choose to ignore his contract demand, or accept it. It is the actors (laborers) themselves, not the government, that is looking to create change. It is a market-based approach. There's no legislation or punishment levied.

It’s a contractual quota that discriminates on the basis of race and gender. 

Do you understand what a quota is?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Oscars -- Thoughts About Racial Inequality
« Reply #89 on: March 06, 2018, 07:31:31 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18901
  • Tommy Points: 1235
Roy, I'm getting a tad confused. I get how maybe an employer can't say "We're gonna hire this many of this" but I'm not sure why an actor can't say in their contract "I won't be in the movie unless you hire this many".   Does that make it an illegal contract because you're trying to force an illegal action?