Solving the #OscarsSoWhite Controversy

[LawAndChaos]

As an addendum to all this, the IAT tests (one of which I personally tried online) that have been circling around lately (and to my knowledge it has been relatively recent) was something that was mentioned on the Marketplace. I remember doing one of these IAT in relation to "unconscious bias against women in scientific fields" or something like that, and the test itself is flawed.
It's entirely based around reflex programming through hitting buttons to sort words, and when it swaps the words around on you after you've adapted to the initial pattern it attempts to use the fact that you're messing up to being "unconsciously sexist/racist/whatever" when in reality it's merely because your reflexes have adapted to sorting words a certain way in the initial phase of the test. It programs a pattern into you and then tries to mess with that pattern to imply some semblance of unconscious bias.

If you want to argue unconscious bias, then it makes more sense to state that the bias comes from the fact that in a story people are more likely to connect with someone who they can relate to or project themselves onto, and thus have a deeper emotional connection with some stories than others. But when you think about it that has little to do with race and more to do with a person's own experiences and opinions.

Also, gonna break this down real quick.

That's literally the opposite of what the critics are saying. They want a merit based system and are criticising the Oscars for being influenced by race, as evidenced by the blatantly disproportionate number of white people winning vs every other race.

This is literally accusing them of being discriminatory, I don't see how it isn't. "The oscars are favoring white people over other races." How is that not implying racial discrimination? Don't give me the unconscious bias thing, I already stated above the problem with that argument.

That doesn't mean they want a quota system or to sack white judges, those are assumptions you have made about the criticisms.

Then you consider #Oscarstoowhite to not be a hastag movement that declares the Oscars are too white?

As an addendum to this addendum, I recall people mentioning Creed earlier in this thread as being something that deserved nomination, but was supposedly excluded because #Oscarstoowhite.

Uh, considering that Creed, regardless of cast, looks like yet another Rocky film with a different title, it would not surprise me if the Oscars judges came at with rather cynically, considering they've likely viewed previous Rocky films and by this point felt it was literally nothing new.

Now that's just me making assumptions because I haven't seen the film myself, so if there's something in it that's groundbreaking or is treading new ground compared to the Rocky films, feel free to correct me by pointing it out.

But by and large I feel that most of this is just outrage against an awards show that in and of itself is so antiquated already (since it stubbornly chooses to exclude entire genres) that the idea of calling for any kind of change should focus more on improving the shows in a manner that helps everyone. I don't think demanding "diversity" in this way will improve things. I think instead it will force the Oscars to pay lip service to a minority demographic in an attempt to placate the people spewing vitriol/outrage/criticism.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you want to argue unconscious bias, then it makes more sense to state that the bias comes from the fact that in a story people are more likely to connect with someone who they can relate to or project themselves onto, and thus have a deeper emotional connection with some stories than others. But when you think about it that has little to do with race and more to do with a person's own experiences and opinions.

Ah, but then we must ask why do people relate more with some than with others? People don't have trouble relating to space marines or James Bond, apparently, but do with people of different ethnicities. And then, only certain different ethnicities and those change over time.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Ah, but then we must ask why do people relate more with some than with others? People don't have trouble relating to space marines or James Bond, apparently, but do with people of different ethnicities. And then, only certain different ethnicities and those change over time.

Well the thing with James Bond is similar to Indiana Jones.

James Bond is a charming, english spy. He could easily be any ethnicity, so long as he is still a charming, english spy. (And before you even state it, yes you can be a different race and still be England-born.). See that's the beauty of characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones; they're not really realistic or relatable, but they represent an ideal fantasy.

Caricatures like Bond and Indy are charming, heroic characters. They're good with women, they're unambiguously the good guy, they're cool, (in Bond's case, he has all those cool gadgets), they go on adventures, etc. They are the classical hero with a fresh coat of paint. Despite all that, the characters themselves have no character. Indiana symbolically is just the hat and the ideal he represents. Bond is not really that different. That's how Bond was able to be effectively portrayed by both Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan so effectively, and while blond Bond got some friction, people warmed to it quickly because if I recall correctly they kept the spirit of Bond intact.

In that regard, so long as the spirit of what the character is can be kept intact, their appearance doesn't really matter at all.

It's also part of why the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did so poorly; Harrison Ford is older now, and like it or not he's not as spry as he used to be. As a result Indy himself was not nearly as enjoyable, because they didn't keep the spirit of his character (as an ass-kicking archaeologist going on adventures and beating up bad guys) intact. Of course Crystal Skull failed for many other reasons, but Indy not being as Indy as he used to be was a part of that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ah, but then we must ask why do people relate more with some than with others? People don't have trouble relating to space marines or James Bond, apparently, but do with people of different ethnicities. And then, only certain different ethnicities and those change over time.

Well the thing with James Bond is similar to Indiana Jones.

James Bond is a charming, english spy. He could easily be any ethnicity, so long as he is still a charming, english spy. (And before you even state it, yes you can be a different race and still be England-born.). See that's the beauty of characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones; they're not really realistic or relatable, but they represent an ideal fantasy.

Like Bella Swan? That makes sense, at least for characters without character. However, there was a big kerfuffle about the idea of having Idris Elba play Bond, though.

In any case, in many cases ethnicity is cited as being a reason a character is hard to relate to, and there's enough comments from the general public to support that view. People upset that Rue was black in the Hunger Games films, instead of being black like she was in the books, for example. A particularly stupid example, but many people found it harder to care about her once they couldn't overlook her race.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Like Bella Swan? That makes sense, at least for characters without character.

Well, yeah. She's not really anything other than a blank slate for the reader to project themselves onto. That's actually a pretty good example.

However, there was a big kerfuffle about the idea of having Idris Elba play Bond, though.

Motivated by his race?

Honestly I think that part of the issue with it is more changing the actor. If I asked people who played the best Bond, some might say Brosnan, some might say Connery, some might consider blond Bond to be the best. If I recall correctly blond Bond got a ton of initial blowback but audiences warmed to him eventually.

Part of that I believe is because people feel their immersion is broken when the actor is changed to something different. Pierce Brosnan likely received a warm reception because his portrayal visually was not too far off from Sean Connery's. When they brought blond Bond into the picture he was met with some resistance because he was a departure from the established appearance of Bond. So it's not so much a race issue as it is people simply wanting what they already know Bond looks like, which allows them to connect better. If Idris effectively portrays the spirit of what Bond is, then the dissent will die down and people will warm to him just like they did with blond Bond.

In any case, in many cases ethnicity is cited as being a reason a character is hard to relate to, and there's enough comments from the general public to support that view. People upset that Rue was black in the Hunger Games films, instead of being black like she was in the books, for example. A particularly stupid example, but many people found it harder to care about her once they couldn't overlook her race.

Uhh...being black instead of being black?

 

[Thaluikhain]

However, there was a big kerfuffle about the idea of having Idris Elba play Bond, though.

Motivated by his race?

In large part, yes. Often not worded that way, there were complaints that he's not properly English like the other ones were, which is what you say when you are pretending to not be racist, just not very hard.

Part of that I believe is because people feel their immersion is broken when the actor is changed to something different. Pierce Brosnan likely received a warm reception because his portrayal visually was not too far off from Sean Connery's. When they brought blond Bond into the picture he was met with some resistance because he was a departure from the established appearance of Bond. So it's not so much a race issue as it is people simply wanting what they already know Bond looks like, which allows them to connect better. If Idris effectively portrays the spirit of what Bond is, then the dissent will die down and people will warm to him just like they did with blond Bond.

Hmmm...I hadn't thought that was the case, some mention was made of him being blonde, but I didn't think it was seen as such a big deal.

In any case, in many cases ethnicity is cited as being a reason a character is hard to relate to, and there's enough comments from the general public to support that view. People upset that Rue was black in the Hunger Games films, instead of being black like she was in the books, for example. A particularly stupid example, but many people found it harder to care about her once they couldn't overlook her race.

Uhh...being black instead of being black?

Like I said, a particularly stupid example. She was black in the books, when people saw that she was black in the films, there was a big outcry about her being changed to being black, lots of fans were upset.

 

[maninahat]

I remember doing one of these IAT in relation to "unconscious bias against women in scientific fields" or something like that, and the test itself is flawed... It's entirely based around reflex programming through hitting buttons to sort words, and when it swaps the words around on you after you've adapted to the initial pattern it attempts to use the fact that you're messing up to being "unconsciously sexist/racist/whatever" when in reality it's merely because your reflexes have adapted to sorting words a certain way in the initial phase of the test. It programs a pattern into you and then tries to mess with that pattern to imply some semblance of unconscious bias.

If that were true about the adaptation breaking the test, we could assume that black people and white people would get the exact same results, as their reflexes would adapt in the exact same way due to the test order being the same for both. From what I have read, they come out with different results.

If you want to argue unconscious bias, then it makes more sense to state that the bias comes from the fact that in a story people are more likely to connect with someone who they can relate to or project themselves onto, and thus have a deeper emotional connection with some stories than others.

That is also a problem as well. People like Woody Allen are called out on why they never have black actors in their movies, to which he replies he just picks the best people who are best suited to the roles he has in his stories. But that leads to the follow up question "why do you keep writing roles that are "unsuitable" for black people but always suitable for white people?" The problem exhists far beyond just an award ceremony - POCs are rare in all areas of the film making process, which perhaps only helps sustain the problem.

Also, gonna break this down real quick.

That's literally the opposite of what the critics are saying. They want a merit based system and are criticising the Oscars for being influenced by race, as evidenced by the blatantly disproportionate number of white people winning vs every other race.

This is literally accusing them of being discriminatory, I don't see how it isn't. "The oscars are favoring white people over other races." How is that not implying racial discrimination? Don't give me the unconscious bias thing, I already stated above the problem with that argument.

Unconcious bias can cause people to be racially discriminatory, yes. Is it racist? I would stop short of saying that.

That doesn't mean they want a quota system or to sack white judges, those are assumptions you have made about the criticisms.

Then you consider #Oscarstoowhite to not be a hastag movement that declares the Oscars are too white?

It means that the Oscars is disproportionately white - way too white. That doesn't automatically mean "take away awards from deserving white actors and fire the white judges". It means nominate more POC actors and hire more POC judges. Inclusiveness isn't a zero sum game.

Uh, considering that Creed, regardless of cast, looks like yet another Rocky film with a different title, it would not surprise me if the Oscars judges came at with rather cynically, considering they've likely viewed previous Rocky films and by this point felt it was literally nothing new.

But apparently Stallone was good enough to get a nomination for staring in yet another Rocky movie. After being nominated for previous Rocky movies. Not to take anything away from Stallone, but it does look like an odd oversight to only credit him and no one else.

But by and large I feel that most of this is just outrage against an awards show that in and of itself is so antiquated already (since it stubbornly chooses to exclude entire genres) that the idea of calling for any kind of change should focus more on improving the shows in a manner that helps everyone. I don't think demanding "diversity" in this way will improve things. I think instead it will force the Oscars to pay lip service to a minority demographic in an attempt to placate the people spewing vitriol/outrage/criticism.

I mean, as I said previously, even if you don't care about the controversy, getting more of a range of judges in will hopefully let a broader range of films getting credit - not just historical dramas. That alone seems a good reason to do something about the judging.

 

[LawAndChaos]

If that were true about the adaptation breaking the test, we could assume that black people and white people would get the exact same results, as their reflexes would adapt in the exact same way due to the test order being the same for both. From what I have read, they come out with different results.

In fact I would also like to add that not everyone's reflexes and hand-eye coordination is the same from person to person, which can account for this discrepancy. Factors such as age (which can affect reflexes), occupation (which can affect reflexes based on the occupation) and more dexterity-based activity and hobbies can affect them as well, hand-eye coordination being the biggest factor. That in my opinion makes the IAT questionable at best. And if you wanna get speculative, then biological factors pertaining to a person's eyesight and reaction time can also factor in, which would include the physiological differences between races. So in addition to programming a pattern, it's a pattern that cannot account for human error or coordination. It instead interprets raw almost mindless reaction as some form of unconscious bias, where you are encouraged to do it as fast as possible. By the way, raw reflex with little time to think about anything other than the action IMO doesn't provide a good insight into the unconscious, since the unconscious influences an individual unconsciously towards one thing or another based on information processed consciously. Raw reaction where you are encouraged not to think is far from what I would call conscious.

That is also a problem as well. People like Woody Allen are called out on why they never have black actors in their movies, to which he replies he just picks the best people who are best suited to the roles he has in his stories. But that leads to the follow up question "why do you keep writing roles that are "unsuitable" for black people but always suitable for white people?" The problem exhists far beyond just an award ceremony - POCs are rare in all areas of the film making process, which perhaps only helps sustain the problem.

Do...do you not see the problem with that statement? You are stating we should essentially start policing filmmakers on their content in the name of "diversity."

That sounds like you have been drinking a terrifying amount of PC kool-aid, man.

The harsh reality is that yes, there is a disproportionate amount of white people in film. But when you start making statements along the lines of "we need to make these people do this" you are starting to walk into a very questionable area.

Honestly if there's any REAL obstacle here, it's the greenlighting you should be complaining about. Where does a film begin? At the stoplight. If a film doesn't get greenlighted, it doesn't get made. The oscars deal with finished end products. The reality is that if you want more diverse films, then more films of diversity need to get the green light.

Not only that, but investors breathing down the director's neck is also a factor as well. This is what Ridley Scott even admits. If he doesn't appeal to the majority, he makes less money, and less money = pissed off investors and pissed off investors = no more movies.

The reality is that money talks in Hollywood. Why do you think Alien Vs. Predator was made into a PG film despite both the original movies being rated R? For the sake of appealing to a broader audience, which equals greater ticket sales.

It all comes back to money, dear boy. You can't change that. You can spin it as racist all you want, but at the end of the day if it loses money, it will inevitably change.

Unconcious bias can cause people to be racially discriminatory, yes. Is it racist? I would stop short of saying that.

You would "stop short" despite the fact that's exactly what it implies. Racial discrimination, unconscious or otherwise, does not change the definition of racial discrimination.

It means that the Oscars is disproportionately white - way too white. That doesn't automatically mean "take away awards from deserving white actors and fire the white judges". It means nominate more POC actors and hire more POC judges. Inclusiveness isn't a zero sum game.

Then list some.

But apparently Stallone was good enough to get a nomination for staring in yet another Rocky movie. After being nominated for previous Rocky movies. Not to take anything away from Stallone, but it does look like an odd oversight to only credit him and no one else.

Well, how was his performance? I doubt it was race bias that favored Stallone. And furthermore, it was because HE was a nominee. Like holy shit that's how it works. When you nominate an actor you don't nominate two people in one nomination slot. Maybe he stood out from the rest of the cast, maybe it's because they had low expectations for him going in and were surprised, maybe it's because he's playing a legacy character from a long running film series.

Whatever the reason, are we really going to spin it as racial bias simply because he's white? Jesus.

I mean, as I said previously, even if you don't care about the controversy, getting more of a range of judges in will hopefully let a broader range of films getting credit - not just historical dramas. That alone seems a good reason to do something about the judging.

Then let's see some who're qualified. I would totally stand by anyone qualified who wanted to join the judge table.

 

[maninahat]

[snip]

All of those could genuinely be influencing factors, but again, we wouldn't expect a difference in responses down racial lines if the issue was physiological - which is what has been happening.

That is also a problem as well. People like Woody Allen are called out on why they never have black actors in their movies, to which he replies he just picks the best people who are best suited to the roles he has in his stories. But that leads to the follow up question "why do you keep writing roles that are "unsuitable" for black people but always suitable for white people?" The problem exhists far beyond just an award ceremony - POCs are rare in all areas of the film making process, which perhaps only helps sustain the problem.

Do...do you not see the problem with that statement? You are stating we should essentially start policing filmmakers on their content in the name of "diversity."

That sounds like you have been drinking a terrifying amount of PC kool-aid, man.

Criticising a production company for not hiring black people isn't policing. It's pointing out that it isn't good. It's still their prerogative as to whether they are going to do anything about it, but it would be weird if they didn't.

It makes no difference in effort for a writer to write black or white characters, or for casting to select a black or white person, but many naturally gravitate towards white characters and actors. People tend to get defensive about it, but it does happen and it can be simply fixed by a marginal bit of conscientiousness. As a writer myself, it's as simple as me asking myself: "why did I make this character male/white/straight?" (or "why did I make them female/asian/gay?"), "Does it matter if they aren't?", "Would it be a more interesting story if they weren't?"

Honestly if there's any REAL obstacle here, it's the greenlighting you should be complaining about. Where does a film begin? At the stoplight. If a film doesn't get greenlighted, it doesn't get made. The oscars deal with finished end products. The reality is that if you want more diverse films, then more films of diversity need to get the green light.

Not only that, but investors breathing down the director's neck is also a factor as well. This is what Ridley Scott even admits. If he doesn't appeal to the majority, he makes less money, and less money = pissed off investors and pissed off investors = no more movies.

I agree that's also a problem. I'd go so far as to say some producers will openly discourage diversity, either by avoiding such films, or by demanding casting/scripting changes to protect their investment.

It all comes back to money, dear boy. You can't change that. You can spin it as racist all you want, but at the end of the day if it loses money, it will inevitably change.

But then that expands the problem to the audience. A movie makes money by people watching it. If people won't watch it because the leading cast aren't white, what does that say about broader society? Some people conspicuously avoid "feminist movies" (like Fury Road), but many people will, without making a concious decision, just not watch specific movies.

Unconcious bias can cause people to be racially discriminatory, yes. Is it racist? I would stop short of saying that.

You would "stop short" despite the fact that's exactly what it implies. Racial discrimination, unconscious or otherwise, does not change the definition of racial discrimination.

Depending on who you ask, racism is racial discrimination, but racial discrimination isn't necessarily racism (even though some treat them as interchangeable). Supporters of positive action will refuse to describe it as racism, even when it can rely on a form of racial discrimination. But please, don't start asking me about that because it is a subject I'm tired of debating.

It means that the Oscars is disproportionately white - way too white. That doesn't automatically mean "take away awards from deserving white actors and fire the white judges". It means nominate more POC actors and hire more POC judges. Inclusiveness isn't a zero sum game.

Then list some.

Some what?

But apparently Stallone was good enough to get a nomination for staring in yet another Rocky movie. After being nominated for previous Rocky movies. Not to take anything away from Stallone, but it does look like an odd oversight to only credit him and no one else.

Well, how was his performance? I doubt it was race bias that favored Stallone. And furthermore, it was because HE was a nominee. Like holy shit that's how it works. When you nominate an actor you don't nominate two people in one nomination slot. Maybe he stood out from the rest of the cast, maybe it's because they had low expectations for him going in and were surprised, maybe it's because he's playing a legacy character from a long running film series.

Whatever the reason, are we really going to spin it as racial bias simply because he's white? Jesus.

The nomination process can be quite a bit more screwy than simply recognising a stand out performance. Jamie Foxx once won best supporting actor in Colateral, even though he was the main character. Same thing happened to Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit because they wanted to give the best actor nomination to Jeff Bridges (even though he is the supporting character), and they didn't want to use up a best Actress nomination on her. The panel like to award good stuff, but they tend to re-define the categories when necessary so as to make best use of the spaces available. My suspicion is that Creed was a movie they liked, they had to edge it out from all the other categories, but they felt necessary to give it an award. Of course, all of that in itself isn't racial discriminatory. No one sat down and said "we can't give awards to anyone but the white actors". However their net preferences happen to mean no one apparently liked black performances enough this year to offer a nomination.

I mean, as I said previously, even if you don't care about the controversy, getting more of a range of judges in will hopefully let a broader range of films getting credit - not just historical dramas. That alone seems a good reason to do something about the judging.

Then let's see some who're qualified. I would totally stand by anyone qualified who wanted to join the judge table.

I have no insight into the hiring process, but the panel has agreed this needs to happen.

 

[LawAndChaos]

All of those could genuinely be influencing factors, but again, we wouldn't expect a difference in responses down racial lines if the issue was physiological - which is what has been happening.

Ok, gonna dial it back a bit on the strawmanning I did in my initial write of this post.

Instead, further flaws include the fact that these tests are essentially word association--except YOU, the one being tested, does not get to choose the words. Therefore the issue with the test itself is the fact that the ones doing the experiment choose the words instead of you, which can lead you to make certain choices within the test that reflect the conclusion they've already drawn.

Plus, race is just as much a part of an individual's identity as anything else. So when you are presented words and are told to associate them with your own race vs any other race you are less likely to associate the more unsavory words because you think of your OWN identity rather than a race as a whole. So if you were to associate the word "criminal" with either white or black, and you are black, you are more likely to associate it with white because in your personal experience you do not associate that word with yourself.

So "I am black" --- "I am not a criminal" --- "criminal does not go in the black category."

Not even mentioning the limitation of simply including white and black and therefore making everything a simple "column A column B" test which is far too narrow for this kind of test to accurately determine racial discrimination in the first place.

Criticising a production company for not hiring black people isn't policing. It's pointing out that it isn't good.

Why is it not good? Why do we suddenly have a problem with people simply not being present?

So before you even respond, I will presume you are going to claim they are denying opportunities to POCs by intentionally selecting non-POCs, and of course it swings back to the unconscious discrimination we all have, etc, etc, etc.

Hollywood is a tough place. People who go there in hopes of starting a movie career tend to end up going nowhere. You can claim that there's some sort of race discrimination going on or whatever, but the reality is that if I were to bet money there are just as many nobodies out there who are white as there are black, who are trapped at the bottom unable to even get into the business. Producers are greedy pieces of shit and the reality is that because they have the money, they make the investments and they control the directors. Appealing to the majority is a consequence of that. THAT is why it is bad. Because the people with the money have the power, and the people with the power want more money. And the majority has more money than the minority.

If this is a race issue, then the hashtag should be #AmericaTooWhite

If this is an issue of creative freedoms limited by economic common sense, then the in order to diversify, there needs to be proof that diverse films demonstrate they are financially viable.

And surprise surprise, the new Star Wars had a Black supporting lead, and a female lead, and NOBODY CARED ABOUT THE COLOR OF FINN'S SKIN OR THE FACT THAT REY HAD A VAJ.

The only people that had any problem were likely clickbaiters or Star Wars puritans who angrily proclaimed it violated the continuity of the prequels where the troopers were established to be clones, and Rey being literally Luke Skywalker and Han Solo mashed together and as a result being a Mary Sue.

People tend to get defensive about it, but it does happen and it can be simply fixed by a marginal bit of conscientiousness. As a writer myself, it's as simple as me asking myself: "why did I make this character male/white/straight?" (or "why did I make them female/asian/gay?"), "Does it matter if they aren't?", "Would it be a more interesting story if they weren't?"

I think the best question is "Why does it matter?" Because you see, when we begin to focus on a character's gender, orientation, and race, we lose sight of the most important question:

"Did I write a good character?"

There are a lot of things about a character that can easily be interchangeable so long as the core of the character is preserved. You might need to make some minor changes to certain aspects of them, or even major ones if you make drastic physical changes to the initial draft of how the character looks, but creatively if you know what you want to do with that character, the race/gender/orientation of that character is largely irrelevant unless you want it to be part of their character.

I agree that's also a problem. I'd go so far as to say some producers will openly discourage diversity, either by avoiding such films, or by demanding casting/scripting changes to protect their investment.

But then that expands the problem to the audience. A movie makes money by people watching it. If people won't watch it because the leading cast aren't white, what does that say about broader society? Some people conspicuously avoid "feminist movies" (like Fury Road), but many people will, without making a concious decision, just not watch specific movies.

First of all, at least we agree on that. But like I said, it's because of the statistical majority. If the majority was black instead, we'd likely see films that had the leading cast consist of more black than white. It's not really a race issue with producers; they see the color of the skin as another layer to peel back to get the tasty wallet inside. In fact, the lack of diversity isn't even something I would blame the audiences for. I would instead blame it on the lack of variety we have available in relation to the films we watch. The creators are the ones making the content, are we to blame ourselves for not having the option to consume more diverse media?

Yet at the same time, can we blame them for believing that this is the only way they can make money (in appealing to the majority, which has the most money by principle of their being more people in that group)? I think when I look at the listings for my local movie theater, I can count the number of POC leads on one hand, compared to the number of white ones.

But that doesn't really reflect on the quality of the films, so the cycle continues, possibly because the producers think there's some race factor there when there likely isn't.

(Tangent start)Fury Road was a blatant "feminist" film, in which Mad Max, the eponymous main protagonist, is limp and borderline irrelevant. Feminist concepts of Patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and objectification of women were all on full display in that film. None of the female characters were particularly interesting, Max himself was dull as a plank of wood, and the only redeeming quality I can find in the film was the relationship between one of the wives and the war boy who gets brought along on their magical mystery tour, in addition to the serviceable action scenes. Oh, and inb4 I get flamed to hell for having distaste for Fury Road.{Tangent end)

Depending on who you ask, racism is racial discrimination, but racial discrimination isn't necessarily racism (even though some treat them as interchangeable). Supporters of positive action will refuse to describe it as racism, even when it can rely on a form of racial discrimination. But please, don't start asking me about that because it is a subject I'm tired of debating.

You don't need to answer me when I ask "what the hell does that even?"

Isn't that like, doublethink? Racial discrimination is a form of racism. It's like saying racism is segregation, but segregation isn't racism. (Are those race-based safe spaces still being called for on college campuses?)

Well I won't debate it with you further, since you're, er, tired. I'll just chalk it up to "this racial discrimination thing is really confused and I don't want to bog things down discussing it."

Some what?

Some POC Actors and potential POC judges. We need candidates if we're going to nominate them.

However their net preferences happen to mean no one apparently liked black performances enough this year to offer a nomination.

I cut down some of this for space, but I feel this point is the best response I can give to you.
I guess no one liked any POC performances this year to consider them as a nominee.
The Oscars are not infallible, so it's clear that they have a lot of films, performances, actors, actresses, etc, to sift through before deciding their choices. Among those, minorities will likely be just that: a minority among the pile of stuff they have to sift through. And then on top of that there's category shifting like you stated in this point.
If what was offered by POCs wasn't enough this year, then try again next year and see what you can make.
Or alternatively we can all collectively declare the Oscars as "yet another retarded BS awards show that doesn't really know shit" and move on without getting hung up on how there needs to be less white people. (and yeah, due to the limits on nominees I imagine that shoving more POCs in for diversity's sake would mean giving them the opportunity purely BECAUSE they are a POC, and depriving non-POCs of that opportunity. Last I checked that's called "positive discrimination." I don't think that's what you want.)

I have no insight into the hiring process, but the panel has agreed this needs to happen.

Then I fail to see any further issue if they're already looking into it.
Now hopefully they will hire based on qualifications rather than to placate the demands of the people demanding it.

 

[madwarper]

Okay, here you go. A direct quote where you said the panel should be forced to be 'more diverse' meaning to sack whites and make racist selection rules where judges MUST be black.

Except, adding diversity =/= removing (or "sacking") existing members. This is not a zero sum game.

 

[maninahat]

Who said anything about sacking white jury members? Please quote me where I did.

Okay, here you go. A direct quote where you said the panel should be forced to be 'more diverse' meaning to sack whites and make racist selection rules where judges MUST be black.

I am suggesting we have more diversity on the judging panel

And before you're utterly predictable and repeat a point you previously lost: No you can't doublethink hiring judges based on race, and it somehow now being racism.

I asked you to quote were I said we should sack white jury members.

"I am suggesting we have more diversity on the judging panel" =/= "the panel should be forced to be more diverse" =/= "we should sack white jury members".

Try again.

That's literally the opposite of what the critics are saying. They want a merit based system and are criticising the Oscars for being influenced by race, as evidenced by the blatantly disproportionate number of white people winning vs every other race.

You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence, first it has to be a merit system, then it has to be a racist system where white people can't win.

The way I see it, this is how your argument boils down:

a)The Oscars is a fair meritocracy,
b) its panel is impartial,
c) only the most deserving actors get Oscars,
d) and the lack of POC actors winning means there hasn't been any good enough POC performances this year
e) and in other years too.

The problem with this argument is that it inevitably suggest point f):
f) For white people to keep disproportionately winning, by the above logic they have to be better at acting than POC actors.

I am assuming you don't think f) is the case because you insist you are not racist, so there must be something wrong with at least one of the above points. Could you correct me?

 

[maninahat]

"I am suggesting we have more diversity on the judging panel" =/= "the panel should be forced to be more diverse" =/= "we should sack white jury members".

So you're saying you can put people on a panel over their race to replace others who are 'too white' without it being racism?

Didn't we already adress that doublethink is not a legit debating tactic?

Either the current panel will do, or you will prove they're racists, and prove that replacing them based on race instead of merit is somehow not racist.

What actually happened is that you kept rewriting my arguments so that you could then describe them as "flip-flopping" and "double thinking". Straw manning is also not a legit debating tactic.

This is the first time you have asked how to diversify the panel without sacking white people, which is a reasonable question. If you want to diversify your work force, simply hire them. You don't have to fire people to make room for them, you just do it henceforth. You are allowed to do targeted advertising to encourage a more diverse range of people to apply for these roles, and you don't have to hire lesser qualified POC applicants just to meet some quota.

I don't think either of us has any insight into how these judges are in fact selected - I would assume there are a bunch of qualities they are looking for, but the precise selection criteria apparently results in a disproportionate number of white people getting the job. With that in mind, they could also review their selection criteria to make sure it is fair, and try not to contain pointless criteria that only serve to create this imbalance.

The problem with this argument is that it inevitably suggest point f):
f) For white people to keep disproportionately winning, by the above logic they have to be better at acting than POC actors.

I am assuming you don't think f) is the case because you insist you are not racist, so there must be something wrong with at least one of the above points. Could you correct me?

Please read the previous discussion. Correlation says nothing and you yourself refused to provide evidence of racism. I'm losing track of how often you've flip-flopped on accusing the current jury and saying you don't want to accuse them, but this constant rewinding of arguments you lost can't continue.

Yes, I know you are arguing towards some null hypothesis that there is no evidence of racism. What I am not clear on is your explanation for the apparent lack of correlation between the number POC actors and the number of nominations? Because if you can't provide one, well that leads us back to point f).

 

[LawAndChaos]

This is the first time you have asked how to diversify the panel without sacking white people, which is a reasonable question. If you want to diversify your work force, simply hire them.

And this will cost extra money.
Layoffs happen for a reason, so in the end someone is going to have to take the hit for an additional hire.
For someone who is certain this is not a zero sum game, you seem to ignore the fact that employers are not made of money.

You don't have to fire people to make room for them, you just do it henceforth. You are allowed to do targeted advertising to encourage a more diverse range of people to apply for these roles, and you don't have to hire lesser qualified POC applicants just to meet some quota.

You still haven't provided any potential people for these roles. I imagine due to the specialized nature of the position, that there would be few candidates, so it's not like I'm asking you to sift through a ton of people. Just one or two examples would be totally fine.
And yes, depending on how much these people get paid, they would likely need to let someone go in exchange for one of these POCs. This would not be a problem if the hire in question had better qualifications, but that's not what people here are caring about, now is it?

I don't think either of us has any insight into how these judges are in fact selected - I would assume there are a bunch of qualities they are looking for, but the precise selection criteria apparently results in a disproportionate number of white people getting the job.

Because white people are a majority group, therefore there is a higher probability of them finding a white person who is qualified before a black person, and once a position is filled, we can therefore assume the employers stop looking for new hires because they have what they need.
From there the initiative is on the people who want to be hired to try for a position, not the employer to ask for more people to fill a position that is already filled.

With that in mind, they could also review their selection criteria to make sure it is fair, and try not to contain pointless criteria that only serve to create this imbalance.

You are speaking with the presumption that the selection process is "unfair" and might contain "pointless criteria." Maybe they ARE fair, and there simply hasn't been someone that can beat the qualifications of their current hires? And guess what? "Race" would count as one of your "pointless criteria." So why does it matter if there's mostly whites then, if race doesn't matter?
If a POC comes forward with the right qualifications or better ones that someone currently in the position, the only reason I can logically think they would turn them away is because they already have all their positions filled. Usually employers who have already finished hiring would find a new hire a pain in the ass unless the hire in question was SO GOOD that they would have to be insane not to hire them. And even then someone with Uber qualifications might not get hired because the employer doesn't want to fire an employee, especially a long time one. In that regard race is irrelevant.

Yes, I know you are arguing towards some null hypothesis that there is no evidence of racism. What I am not clear on is your explanation for the apparent lack of correlation between the number POC actors and the number of nominations? Because if you can't provide one, well that leads us back to point f).

Burden of proof, but okay, I can play this game.
[spoiler: Wall of Textplination]
1) Acting -- Instead of presuming that white actors > POC actors, as you would claim we are claiming, we presume that this year they had more notable performances. This can be influenced by a number of factors. Delivery, script, atmosphere, character, enthusiasm and direction are multiple factors that can influence a performance. Furthermore through sheer probability, there are more white actors (actors with light skin, not strictly caucasians) than POC actors. As a result there is a higher probability of white actors receiving nominations than black actors through probability alone.

While we could argue Creed as a point, we could also easily argue that perhaps Stallone simply performed better than the lead, or was the more interesting performance to watch, not because of skin color, but because of these aforementioned factors that contribute to an actor's performance.
To that end we cannot for certain presume skin color was a factor unless we had outright proof beyond the theory of unconscious racism, which is for the most part unsubstantiated.

2) Film -- The purpose of the Oscars is to judge films based on their quality. To this end I will once again point out the sheer volume of films they would be expected to go over and view in 2015. To see the number of POCs with substantial roles in these films, we would have to make at the very least a passing glance at every single 2015 film ourselves, and review their information pertaining to who has substantial roles in the film to ensure at least one or more POCs are present in the main cast of the films.
Once again I will defer to the fact that the majority is bigger than the minority, so to that end, we can also presume films statistically follow that formula, and if we consider the varied quality of film, perhaps some films are simply better than other ones. To that end, we can presume the films they chose as nominees stood out more than others.

3) Limitations on Nominees -- They cannot choose every single film or actor as a nominee. They are limited to slots. Therefore we can assume they are extremely careful in what selections they make for nominees. We can presume that with the level of responsibility placed on these judges they are forced to take careful consideration, AND come to a proper consensus on what films and actors/actresses are deserving of a nomination. So to that end, I have doubts that race had anything to do with the selections they made, because an awards show with this level of prestige demands a level of professionalism that we can presume would make race irrelevant in the selection process. Furthermore it's clear they've had to shift nominees they've felt were deserving of awards into other categories due to these slot limitations.

4) The Contradiction -- If we are to avoid making a big deal about race, then perhaps we should stop presuming that everything is discrimination.

2014 had "12 Years a Slave" won best picture. Yet you would argue "that it doesn't count" because it's a historical piece about slavery, which is a stupid argument. A good film is a good film, and they felt it was worthy of the best picture in 2014.
Also,
Alfonso Cuaron, Mexican, Best Director
Cate Blanchett, Australian, Best Actress.
20 Feet From Stardom, Best Documentary, POC actresses as the leads.
John Ridley, Best Screenwriter

Compared to

Matthew McConaughey - White, Best Actor in Dallas Buyer's Club
Jared Leto - White, Best Supporting Actor in Dallas Buyer's Club
Spike Jonze - Best Original Screenplay (Her)
Frozen - Best Animated Picture (As a side note IMO: Overrated asf)[/spoiler]

The decrease in POCs as I see it only started for 2015 and 2016, with there being 2 POC winners last year. Yet I don't see racial discrimination. Looking over 2015 there just wasn't that much for them to pick from. I imagine that's no different with 2016.

If anything I stand by that if we want more variety in productions, we need to show that we want that. The creators can lead by example. YOU can speak with your wallet. It's that simple.

Yet now, in 2016, the Oscars are discriminatory against POCs. This is yet another surging trend where everyone is expected to cater to a minority demographic and they cave in harder than a burning house of cards.

News flash, demanding more POCs to be present for no reason outside of "we need more POCs" is essentially demanding they be there BECAUSE they are POC. Is that not racist in and of itself? Or are we going to resort to that "racism = Power + prejudice" crap?

And as an unrelated tangent, it hurt me physically when someone praised Indivisible (not because it looks like a game with a wide variety of cool, interesting characters and an artistically beautiful, well-animated RPG) because there was so much "diversity" in the cast and it's "inclusive." Once upon a time I would've been "yeah variety is good" and yet now because of this constant stream of bile and desperate race-baiting I now cringe at the word "diversity."

Making vitriolic and accusatory statements of racial discrimination will not help anyone. Just as bullying and shaming tactics will only cause growing resentment and disdain.

When we get hung up on this shit, we lose sight of the fact that all that should matter at the end of the day is if we enjoyed it or not. Just as something can be suited to our tastes and be terrible, something can also be insanely good but not be our thing. And quite frankly if you're going to get hung up on whether or not a character in a film is white, then maybe you should consider introspection instead of projecting onto others.

 

[madwarper]

And this will cost extra money.
Layoffs happen for a reason, so in the end someone is going to have to take the hit for an additional hire.
For someone who is certain this is not a zero sum game, you seem to ignore the fact that employers are not made of money.

Wait... What?

Are you implying that the voting members are paid employees of the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences?

 

[LawAndChaos]

Wait... What?

Are you implying that the voting members are paid employees of the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences?

Regular awards are presented for outstanding individual or collective film achievements in a wide variety of categories. Most categories are nominated by the members of the corresponding branch. Actors nominate actors, film editors nominate film editors, etc. However, certain categories such as Foreign Language Film and Animated Feature Film have special voting rules which can be viewed at our Rules & Eligibility page.

All voting members are eligible to select the Best Picture nominees.

Nominations voting is conducted using both paper and online ballots, with online voting being the preferred choice for the overwhelming majority of Academy members. Voting for nominations begins in late December, and all votes are tabulated by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Nomination results are then announced at a live televised press conference in mid-January at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills.

Of course I imagine you're snarking at me, uneducated unprogressive savage that I so clearly am, but either way I'll put this blurb from their site here.

So no, not "paid employees", but "Academy Members". Whether that includes staff...eh, I dunno.
So you got me there.

HOWEVER.

This means that the academy itself must be "racially discriminatory" by that logic, since Academy Members of each respective branch are allowed to vote.

So I guess the Oscars really are racist. Alright everyone, pack up, fun's over, we can't like the Oscars anymore, they're too white so they're exclusionary.

 

[maninahat]

This is the first time you have asked how to diversify the panel without sacking white people, which is a reasonable question. If you want to diversify your work force, simply hire them.

And this will cost extra money.
Layoffs happen for a reason, so in the end someone is going to have to take the hit for an additional hire.
For someone who is certain this is not a zero sum game, you seem to ignore the fact that employers are not made of money.

The academy awards doesn't pay members (they aren't employees), so that isn't a concern for them. With actual employers however, there is such a thing as turn over and this is what creates a demand for new employees; often more so than business expansion. People retire, find new jobs, change roles, or are fired. They're the gaps that you incrementally fill.

You don't have to fire people to make room for them, you just do it henceforth. You are allowed to do targeted advertising to encourage a more diverse range of people to apply for these roles, and you don't have to hire lesser qualified POC applicants just to meet some quota.

You still haven't provided any potential people for these roles. I imagine due to the specialized nature of the position, that there would be few candidates, so it's not like I'm asking you to sift through a ton of people. Just one or two examples would be totally fine.

And yes, depending on how much these people get paid, they would likely need to let someone go in exchange for one of these POCs. This would not be a problem if the hire in question had better qualifications, but that's not what people here are caring about, now is it?

Sorry, I don't understand why I need to provide names?

I don't think either of us has any insight into how these judges are in fact selected - I would assume there are a bunch of qualities they are looking for, but the precise selection criteria apparently results in a disproportionate number of white people getting the job.

Because white people are a majority group, therefore there is a higher probability of them finding a white person who is qualified before a black person, and once a position is filled, we can therefore assume the employers stop looking for new hires because they have what they need.

The term I used was "disproportionate" as opposed to "majority". In a country where the majority of people are white, we'd reasonably expect the majority of people in any large organisation to be white. But disproportionate means far higher proportion of white people (and far fewer POCs) than expected. Women are actually a majority in the US, but make up only a quarter of Oscar members - that is a disproportionately small amount.

With that in mind, they could also review their selection criteria to make sure it is fair, and try not to contain pointless criteria that only serve to create this imbalance.

You are speaking with the presumption that the selection process is "unfair" and might contain "pointless criteria." Maybe they ARE fair, and there simply hasn't been someone that can beat the qualifications of their current hires? And guess what? "Race" would count as one of your "pointless criteria." So why does it matter if there's mostly whites then, if race doesn't matter?

Maybe there are, but the lack of proportionality is indicative of something not being quite right. We can safely assume there isn't a "they have to be white and male" requirement in the Oscar membership application, so it would have to be some other criteria. Glancing over the Oscar website (where they explicitly say they are reviewing their criteria to enable diversity) it seems obtaining membership has a lot to do with how long you have been active in the industry. It stands to reason that if women and minorities were excluded from the industry until only more recently, you are going to have far fewer who have been in film making roles long enough to meet that membership requirement. That requirement also might be a completely arbitrary, created on an assumption that being in a role along time automatically gives you enough experience to be more competent at it. Thus, a somewhat innocuous looking criterion could unexpectedly lead to indirect discrimination.

Yes, I know you are arguing towards some null hypothesis that there is no evidence of racism. What I am not clear on is your explanation for the apparent lack of correlation between the number POC actors and the number of nominations? Because if you can't provide one, well that leads us back to point f).

Burden of proof, but okay, I can play this game.
Statistics [snip]

The previously presented graph/article shows that actually going on probability alone, it would be statistically very unlikely for no suitable POC performances to go nominated; the number of POC actors and POC nominations over a number of decades would mean we would expect to see at least some POC nominations every year. Thus it is very unlikely that random chance is the factor that decided we got no POC nominations.

While we could argue Creed as a point, we could also easily argue that perhaps Stallone simply performed better than the lead, or was the more interesting performance to watch, not because of skin color, but because of these aforementioned factors that contribute to an actor's performance.
To that end we cannot for certain presume skin color was a factor unless we had outright proof beyond the theory of unconscious racism, which is for the most part unsubstantiated.

In the specific case of Creed, that is a good point. But now factor in every film released in 2015/16 and realise that for no black nominations to happen, such a decision would have to have been made every single time for a movie containing POC actors. I guess its like the Bechdel test - it isn't for looking at individual examples, but for looking at the whole medium.

2) Films [snip].

I think that was a legitimate point raised about Oscar members, in that the majority fail to even see every film nominated, let alone every film released that year. But then this raises questions about the viewing preferences of the panel - if they all tend to like watching similar films, and thus vote for similar films, there are vast swathes of movies and actors getting snubbed.

3) Limitations on Nominees [snip]

Yes, I accept this is another flaw with the Oscar process in general. When there isn't room for a stand out actor, they have a tendency of squashing them into the wrong category just to give them some recognition. That is a self-imposed limitation though, and they can change their own rules. They only recently increased the number of "best films" that can be nominated - which was a good idea.

4) The Contradiction -- If we are to avoid making a big deal about race, then perhaps we should stop presuming that everything is discrimination.

This is a statistical problem. For instance, people might point to an unusually cold winter last year and argue this is evidence there is no global warming, whilst scientists will point to forest fires in Russia the next year and say that is evidence of global warming. The scientists aren't just basing it on a forest fire that happened one year, but on measurements they have made of trends over many years - the forest fire is merely an egregious example they are using, rather than the sole proof. Meanwhile, those sceptics pointing to the winter are ignoring decades worth of climate study in favour of an example that confirms their views.

Yet now, in 2016, the Oscars are discriminatory against POCs. This is yet another surging trend where everyone is expected to cater to a minority demographic and they cave in harder than a burning house of cards.

Perhaps they "caved" because they agreed with the criticisms?

News flash, demanding more POCs to be present for no reason outside of "we need more POCs" is essentially demanding they be there BECAUSE they are POC. Is that not racist in and of itself? Or are we going to resort to that "racism = Power + prejudice" crap?

The critics aren't saying that. No critic is saying "you have to award POCs, irrespective of whether they can act". They are saying that there are plenty of excelling POC actors, and for there to be no POCs nominated (again), there must be something wrong with the voting.

And as an unrelated tangent, it hurt me physically when someone praised Indivisible (not because it looks like a game with a wide variety of cool, interesting characters and an artistically beautiful, well-animated RPG) because there was so much "diversity" in the cast and it's "inclusive." Once upon a time I would've been "yeah variety is good" and yet now because of this constant stream of bile and desperate race-baiting I now cringe at the word "diversity."

It does seem a shame that a game being "inclusive" is a weird complement to pay in the 21st century. But the sad fact is that games notoriously lack inclusiveness, so when they do manage it, it needs to be praised. I'll be happy when that term becomes redundant.

When we get hung up on this shit, we lose sight of the fact that all that should matter at the end of the day is if we enjoyed it or not. Just as something can be suited to our tastes and be terrible, something can also be insanely good but not be our thing. And quite frankly if you're going to get hung up on whether or not a character in a film is white, then maybe you should consider introspection instead of projecting onto others.

I find the people most hung up of these things don't actually tend to be the people lacking representation, but the people defending the lack of representation. I've seen people loudly complaining that they have had to play a gay character. or a black character. It did not occur to them that gay and black people are expected to play as straight white chracters most of the time, and not see it as "politicising" or "baiting".

 

[madwarper]

Of course I imagine you're snarking at me, uneducated unprogressive savage that I so clearly am, but either way I'll put this blurb from their site here.

No. I'm just objecting to the analogy that you are sheppie have been using that doesn't make any sense.

If the Academy wanted to, they could swell their ranks.

So no, not "paid employees", but "Academy Members". Whether that includes staff...eh, I dunno.
So you got me there.

Glad to see you come around.

This means that the academy itself must be "racially discriminatory" by that logic, since Academy Members of each respective branch are allowed to vote.

I wouldn't say the Academy is racially discriminating... But, the facts of its demographics are that its members are mostly old (54% over 60), white (94%) men (77%).
http://www.criticalmediaproject.org/cml/media/oscar-academy-demographics/

we can't like the Oscars anymore,

Frankly, I haven't given a toss about the Oscars since they gave Peter Jackson's abomination Best Picture.
So, I don't have any horse in this particular race.