Solving the #OscarsSoWhite Controversy

[LawAndChaos]

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.

Then all I can really do is direct you to the specific qualification requirements for each branch.

http://www.oscars.org/about/becoming-new-member/branch-requirements

Since it requires sponsorship as well, I presume there is possibility for nepotism, however I would also state nominees can apply without sponsorship.

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

At this point I'll drop it. Honestly with how far it went even I don't know what point I was making.
((However I would like to note that any of the nominees from past awards could totally apply for a position, and that includes any of the POCs in past nominations, so I think that those who had the opportunity may or may not have taken the opportunity maybe? I dunno.))

-The term I used was "disproportionate" snip-

Then we should look to the statistics of what demographics are going into film and media, as that would likely provide some insight into why there is a discrepancy in Oscar membership. Oscar membership requires you to have certain qualifications based on the branch you are applying for.

Criteria Snip

The growth of truly independent Black film production was cut short by the Great Depression and the added costs associated with the change in technology from silent to sound. Few of the small independent Black film companies survived the changes and even fewer remained independent once Hollywood stepped in and took control of Black filmmaking by providing the financing.
POC films go as far back as 1918. The first academy awards were in 1929, and the birth of film was the 1890s. You might have a point that historically POCs are still new to the industry, but you are proposing that somehow it's racially discriminatory because non-POCs had a "head start." At this point it almost sounds like the Academy is being expected to give what is essentially "pity invitee" status, and I don't think anyone would want that. Not even going to get into the idea that people are making judgements against the Oscars because of history that has long passed.

Statistically POCs shoulda had somethin

I'll consider this, but I still highly doubt racial discrimination had a hand in anything.

Creed snip

Well how else can you really judge other than on a case by case basis? The medium itself is so massive I don't see how you can just make sweeping judgements about the medium itself based on the individual examples. And before you even make that statement about there being trends in the medium, I'd like to reiterate the "we've got to have money" principle: to producers the majority = the highest number of potential customers. There are outliers, but in the West there is going to be a common trend among films: appealing to the majority to make the most money. However, films are judged by their quality first, not their racial politics.

viewing preferences snip

Then race isn't the problem, it's that the Oscar members are not infallible and cannot see every single film.

Wrong category snip

I think this is a case of wanting to recognize the truly exceptional despite there being additional exceptional performances or films. Like if you had 2 excellent dinners that were both very different but both equally excellent and was asked which one was the best, you'd have trouble deciding. In the voting cases, it could very well be a possibility that in the voting process there was a case of a hung jury -- 2 nominees with the same number of votes. That's just speculation, but it's a possibility.
In any case expanding the nominees is fine; it relieves some pressure on them in regard to deciding what to nominate, and gives them an extra slot to reduce the chances of category splitting.

global warming

I think that's because skeptics look for inconsistencies without recognizing that their case might be an outlier. However that is factual analysis based on scientific experimentation and measurement. Social sciences are not nearly as exact. Trends are not 100% static in social cases. As I see it, patterns can form but it's not nearly as cut and dry as science, because there's many more factors that need to be accounted for.

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

Let me tell you a trend I see.
I see people noticing the pitchforks and torches in the distance and immediately throwing out the big neon sign of "WE AGREE WITH YOU" until those pitchforks and torches slink back over the horizon and out of view.
I am concerned that this is yet another example of that.
If nothing comes of it, then fine. But I stand by the notion that this was not about racial discrimination.
If this was an issue of them missing out on talent, then it's a procedural error.
But it isn't. This was introduced as a race issue first, not an issue relating to demanding reform for the benefit of qualified individuals who were off the radar.

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.

We're all fucked. Let this statement here be the epitaph.
Games do not "lack inclusiveness." You are not being excluded simply because you are "not represented." I am looking forward to Indivisible because it is a fun goddamn game with charming looking characters and an excellent art style. This proves my point about the fixation on race and gender in media so indefensibly that I can honestly wonder if we're ever going to get to just enjoy media without some sort of sensational racial or gender outrage ever again. Alternatively if we're going to start having developers with some crazy representation checklist so they know what they need to include so no one feels "left out."

Getting hung up on diversity snip-

Because race and orientation should not be at the core of a character. In an age where we are supposed to look past appearances and focus on what kind of person we are, there sure is a lot of demand for representation based purely on appearances more than anything else.

And to expand on this, forced diversity is a thing. It shouldn't be, but it is. And when people cave to that, others take notice, and prepare themselves out of a genuine fear that they will get utterly DESTROYED by the media that has allied itself with this "representation" narrative.

 

[maninahat]

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

If nothing comes of it, then fine. But I stand by the notion that this was not about racial discrimination.
If this was an issue of them missing out on talent, then it's a procedural error.
But it isn't. This was introduced as a race issue first, not an issue relating to demanding reform for the benefit of qualified individuals who were off the radar.

If that procedural error disproportionately effects POCs, it can't help but be a race issue as much as an issue about fixing the radar.

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.

We're all fucked. Let this statement here be the epitaph.
Games do not "lack inclusiveness." You are not being excluded simply because you are "not represented." I am looking forward to Indivisible because it is a fun goddamn game with charming looking characters and an excellent art style. This proves my point about the fixation on race and gender in media so indefensibly that I can honestly wonder if we're ever going to get to just enjoy media without some sort of sensational racial or gender outrage ever again.

It's absolutely fine that this is all you want out of Indivisible. Seeing as how you don't care about race or gender, you also don't mind if the protagonist happens to be non-male and non-white. No one could fault that.

Getting hung up on diversity snip-

Because race and orientation should not be at the core of a character. In an age where we are supposed to look past appearances and focus on what kind of person we are, there sure is a lot of demand for representation based purely on appearances more than anything else.

I agree with you. But its precisely this logic that means we should stop having the "30 something straight white male with stubble" as the default protagonist for all games; they aren't inherently better characters, so there is no need for developers to keep doing it every time. I'm certainly bored of seeing them. Even if you don't care about race or gender issues, I think it makes stories better just by encouraging writers to come from a slightly different perspective.

And to expand on this, forced diversity is a thing. It shouldn't be, but it is. And when people cave to that, others take notice, and prepare themselves out of a genuine fear that they will get utterly DESTROYED by the media that has allied itself with this "representation" narrative.

There is a lot of hyperbole about torches and pitchforks, or games getting "destroyed" for not being inclusive, but I really don't see picket lines and lynch mobs forming outside of game studios. The most I have ever seen is critics and gamers saying "it sucks that we hardly ever see POC protagonists," on blogs or videos, and then some game devs saying "Huh, we agree". Hell, the Oscar protests amounted to little more than some twitter comments and some jokes from comedians - it's hardly the Arab spring. Believe it or not, but constructive criticism is not mob order, and someone accepting a criticism does not mean they are under duress. When there is violence and threatening behaviour, the vast majority is directed at the people making those criticisms.

 

[LawAndChaos]

If that procedural error disproportionately effects POCs, it can't help but be a race issue as much as an issue about fixing the radar.

Because only POCs matter, amirite?
Forget non-American non-POCs, they don't matter because CRAWWWWLING IIIIIIIIIN WHITE SKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN

Joking aside, it's a procedural error that was exposed THROUGH the disproportion. The fact that there was a disproportion is proof of an error, but not necessarily one made through racial discrimination.
So the idea that this is a race issue simply because it "affects POCs" (even though a procedural error like this affects everyone who wants to become a member) is incredibly self-centered thinking.

I agree with you. But its precisely this logic that means we should stop having the "30 something straight white male with stubble" as the default protagonist for all games; they aren't inherently better characters, so there is no need for developers to keep doing it every time.

Unless they feel like it.
You are missing my point.
If race truly doesn't matter, then we shouldn't be making a fuss about "30 something straight white males with stubble" in the first place. People should be allowed to make the characters however they want, because they are the creators. It is not their responsibility to represent every single demographic that screams for representation, moreso if that demographic isn't even consuming the media in the first place.

I'm certainly bored of seeing them. Even if you don't care about race or gender issues, I think it makes stories better just by encouraging writers to come from a slightly different perspective.

See THIS makes logical sense. THIS I can agree with.
All the same, I stand by the notion that this is something that is THEIR choice. You are free to criticize them on their choice, but do not try to spin it like they are "spreading misogyny," or "reinforcing racial stereotypes" or "not being inclusive enough" or whatever. Different games match different tastes. There is something for almost everyone in most media unless you are looking for something excruciatingly specific. Lack of representation =/= exclusion. I truly wish more people would realize this.

There is a lot of hyperbole about torches and pitchforks, or games getting "destroyed" for not being inclusive, but I really don't see picket lines and lynch mobs forming outside of game studios.

Nah you just see them get boycotted from stores and developers scared into not bringing their games to the West is all, or if they are brought over they have to get censored.
No biggie, amirite?

The most I have ever seen is critics and gamers saying "it sucks that we hardly ever see POC protagonists," on blogs or videos, and then some game devs saying "Huh, we agree".

I WISH that the critique was that civil all the time. But it isn't.

Hell, the Oscar protests amounted to little more than some twitter comments and some jokes from comedians - it's hardly the Arab spring. Believe it or not, but constructive criticism is not mob order, and someone accepting a criticism does not mean they are under duress. When there is violence and threatening behaviour, the vast majority is directed at the people making those criticisms.

"No guys, WE'RE the ones being threatened."
Maybe the Oscars are the exception to the rule. But there doesn't need to be violence or threatening behavior to use force. All that needs to be done nowadays is to make accusatory statements of racism, sexism, etc. and pretty much any organization will fold harder than a bad poker hand. Otherwise they risk getting slammed in every media outlet both online and on tv as being "racist, sexist, etc." That is not "violence or threatening behavior" but it certainly is slander against the organization isn't it?

You see, that's where the term Social Justice Warrior comes from; these individuals make it their duty to socially annihilate anyone that doesn't take a knee and do anything they say. THAT'S why people have a problem with them.
Whether or not the Oscars is yet another group getting shot at, or if they genuinely had issues with their policies is moot now, because they're making changes on their own.
But if it turns out there is no real interest by any POCs to join the academy and nothing changes, people will still complain that the Oscars aren't being inclusive. What do we do then?

 

[maninahat]

If that procedural error disproportionately effects POCs, it can't help but be a race issue as much as an issue about fixing the radar.

Because only POCs matter, amirite?
Forget non-American non-POCs, they don't matter because CRAWWWWLING IIIIIIIIIN WHITE SKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN

Joking aside, it's a procedural error that was exposed THROUGH the disproportion. The fact that there was a disproportion is proof of an error, but not necessarily one made through racial discrimination.
So the idea that this is a race issue simply because it "affects POCs" (even though a procedural error like this affects everyone who wants to become a member) is incredibly self-centered thinking.

It's hard to blame minorities for being "self-centred" about it - they're the ones getting excluded after all.

I agree with you. But its precisely this logic that means we should stop having the "30 something straight white male with stubble" as the default protagonist for all games; they aren't inherently better characters, so there is no need for developers to keep doing it every time.

Unless they feel like it.
You are missing my point.
If race truly doesn't matter, then we shouldn't be making a fuss about "30 something straight white males with stubble" in the first place. People should be allowed to make the characters however they want, because they are the creators. It is not their responsibility to represent every single demographic that screams for representation, moreso if that demographic isn't even consuming the media in the first place.

well, then perhaps race does matter, at least in the sense that some people are tired of stories that are never about their ethnicity, gender or sexuality. The implication is that mainstream media is happy to marginalise these people and see their stories as less worthy of telling. In that sense, perhaps a writer does have some responsibility to consider those stories, even if that isn't the one they ultimately choose to tell.

I'm certainly bored of seeing them. Even if you don't care about race or gender issues, I think it makes stories better just by encouraging writers to come from a slightly different perspective.

See THIS makes logical sense. THIS I can agree with.
All the same, I stand by the notion that this is something that is THEIR choice. You are free to criticize them on their choice, but do not try to spin it like they are "spreading misogyny," or "reinforcing racial stereotypes" or "not being inclusive enough" or whatever. Different games match different tastes. There is something for almost everyone in most media unless you are looking for something excruciatingly specific. Lack of representation =/= exclusion. I truly wish more people would realize this.

I don't see why you can't accuse someone of spreading misogyny or reinforcing stereotypes - especially if those stereotypes are as egregious as "women are good for nothing" or "the black guy dies first".

There is a lot of hyperbole about torches and pitchforks, or games getting "destroyed" for not being inclusive, but I really don't see picket lines and lynch mobs forming outside of game studios.

Nah you just see them get boycotted from stores and developers scared into not bringing their games to the West is all, or if they are brought over they have to get censored.
No biggie, amirite?

Oh, you mean that time in which DOA developers decided it would not be profitable to release one of their games in the West and then one of their guys opined that feminist censorship was to blame? And because it confirmed people's prejudices, people uncritically assumed this guy had the straight dope, even after the company came out and said the guy was talking bollocks? Yeah, that guy was talking bollocks.

Hell, the Oscar protests amounted to little more than some twitter comments and some jokes from comedians - it's hardly the Arab spring. Believe it or not, but constructive criticism is not mob order, and someone accepting a criticism does not mean they are under duress. When there is violence and threatening behaviour, the vast majority is directed at the people making those criticisms.

"No guys, WE'RE the ones being threatened."
Maybe the Oscars are the exception to the rule. But there doesn't need to be violence or threatening behavior to use force. All that needs to be done nowadays is to make accusatory statements of racism, sexism, etc. and pretty much any organization will fold harder than a bad poker hand. Otherwise they risk getting slammed in every media outlet both online and on tv as being "racist, sexist, etc." That is not "violence or threatening behavior" but it certainly is slander against the organization isn't it?

It isn't slander if it is actually true, and it isn't folding if the organisation agrees the criticism is legitimate. It makes no sense to assume companies get it right every time and only change under misguided media pressure - otherwise we'd have had a Half Life 3 by now.

You see, that's where the term Social Justice Warrior comes from; these individuals make it their duty to socially annihilate anyone that doesn't take a knee and do anything they say. THAT'S why people have a problem with them.

Really? I think the term has been thrown around so much it has lost all legitimacy. I get called a SJW, and the most nefarious thing I have ever done is comment on forums. Anita Sarkeesian gets called a SJW and all she does is make milquetoast game criticisms, and talk about the constant bullying she receives as a consequence of it. People treat this sort of thing as a devastating attack on gaming, but the reality is the hobby isn't anywhere near that fragile. If you want to defend it, defend it from efforts to change the regulation of them, not the people saying how games could be better.

 

[LawAndChaos]

It's hard to blame minorities for being "self-centred" about it - they're the ones getting excluded after all.

If you interpret it as exclusion, I suppose so.

But I guess since I don't fit into that group I'm not allowed to say otherwise.

well, then perhaps race does matter, at least in the sense that some people are tired of stories that are never about their ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

Why does it have to be? This extends my notion of self-centeredness and importance. Why does a story have to be about these things? What about stories that extend to concepts within humanity as a whole? What about stories that are personal stories from the creator themselves? Why do we need stories about someone's ethnicity, gender, or sexuality?

On top of that this presumes that people are tired of stories that don't represent THEM. This does nothing to refute the point I'm making. Variety is a natural thing. Representation springs from variety. People do what they do and from creativity and originality spring diversity. Diversity should never be the means or the end; it should be something that comes naturally from creative vision. Furthermore when you place importance upon these things within a creative vision you risk tokenism and hinging onto stereotypes; meanwhile simply having a character bearing these appearances while just being another character is perceived as "not being [x] enough" for people.

To what extent does a piece meet the gold standard for representation?

The implication is that mainstream media is happy to marginalize these people and see their stories as less worthy of telling.

Wrong, that is assuming the authorial intent is to marginalize these people. You could argue that the more profit-motivated sides of the business are more than happy to do that (and twist the arm of creators to accomplish this), but creators themselves are finding new avenues to creative freedom outside of the mainstream media to get around this.

In that sense, perhaps a writer does have some responsibility to consider those stories, even if that isn't the one they ultimately choose to tell.

Any author that cares about their story will show consideration in making it.

I don't see why you can't accuse someone of spreading misogyny or reinforcing stereotypes - especially if those stereotypes are as egregious as "women are good for nothing" or "the black guy dies first".

Because it is an accusatory statement about as ignorant as demanding someone check their privilege. It is literally guilt based criticism in an attempt to deter behaviors or (in this case) cliches that certain people don't like. To make such statements follows the Sarkeesian logic of "you are affected even if you say you are not" which in and of itself is nonsense if you are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality like a rational human being. The fact that we recognize these cliches as stereotypical tropes in and of itself is an acknowledgement that it is not a reflection of real life.

Oh, you mean that time in which DOA developers decided it would not be profitable to release one of their games in the West and then one of their guys opined that feminist censorship was to blame? And because it confirmed people's prejudices, people uncritically assumed this guy had the straight dope, even after the company came out and said the guy was talking bollocks? Yeah, that guy was talking bollocks.

And GTA getting banned from a store in Australia, and that Fire Emblem censorship, and that news piece about people hacking GTA to "simulate rape attacks" to further extend the "gaming = misogynist" narrative in mainstream media. Just a few examples (to be fair though I think that last one is pretty old).

It isn't slander if it is actually true, and it isn't folding if the organization agrees the criticism is legitimate.

Presuming they didn't look at the precedent regarding organizations accused of discrimination and shit their collective pants. At least I hope that's not what this is.

It makes no sense to assume companies get it right every time and only change under misguided media pressure - otherwise we'd have had a Half Life 3 by now.

It also makes no sense to assume companies get it wrong every time and only change under misguided media pressure. But media pressure is a big part of what pushes for change in companies alongside customer influence (and I'm not talking isolated cases, I'm talking a full blown consumer movement); enough bad PR with enough widespread influence and a company will eventually fold.

Really? I think the term has been thrown around so much it has lost all legitimacy. I get called a SJW, and the most nefarious thing I have ever done is comment on forums. Anita Sarkeesian gets called a SJW and all she does is make milquetoast game criticisms, and talk about the constant bullying she receives as a consequence of it. People treat this sort of thing as a devastating attack on gaming, but the reality is the hobby isn't anywhere near that fragile. If you want to defend it, defend it from efforts to change the regulation of them, not the people saying how games could be better.

I won't call you one, because quite frankly you've been very patient and polite throughout this discussion, so you deserve better.

Anita Sarkeesian is called an SJW because she makes broad, sweeping statements that are largely subjective, yet are pushed as fact. Furthermore she has a reputation for being a liar and professional victim who profits off of that "constant bullying" because it helps her stay relevant in the media and allows her to continue to reiterate her beliefs that "gaming reinforces male entitlement over women's bodies" and "gaming reinforces violence against women as acceptable." Gaming is not fragile, but the outcry against her was motivated by the fact that she was criticizing media that she did not consume, and therefore was largely ignorant about.

Either way Sarkeesian is irrelevant to the Oscars so if you want to discuss that can o worms further it can go to PMs.