The thing is that the economist allready had a chart for the top actors. It was in their chart and they were roughly 85% white. Which is in my opinion the most likely reason for the skewed proportions of oscar nominations. Too few minority actors get hired for big roles in big movies. And if they do get hired, it's most often just the few faces that they know people like.Richard Gozin-Yu said:
Unless we can read minds, we have no way of knowing why they chose that particular film or actor over another. since oscars are supposed to be the measure of whats good and whats not, there is no way of saying that they are not picking better movies without it being just your subjective opinion. and subjective opinion is NOT enough to claim existence of racism. Especially when the data show that in terms of representation, black people are represented more than their population amount.JimB said:
Of course, it's not racism, it's just that white people are obviously superior. If we stop complaining about injustice, it'll magically fade away.maninahat said:
1. That is a justification for why the writers redesign the characters. I don't think the films really care to explain which Universe it must be to explain why they cast POCs.inu-kun said:
Is this in response to me asking you what standard makes proof impossible? Because if so, I think you should probably be spending your time railing against the injustice of any legal system that includes murder, terrorism, and rape among its list of punishable crimes, since those crimes are distinguished from the mere acts that are their base (killing is not the same as murder, for instance) by motivation: by the knowledge and intent the person committing the act had at the time the act was committed. By the standard you have laid out, it is impossible to know any person's motive with certainty--even the accused person's own testimony could be inaccurate to do aphasia or a simple misunderstanding of words or false self-representation--so no person should ever be convicted of these crimes, because I cannot read John Wayne Gacy's mind and prove that his intent was to cause the deaths of children. I can only prove that it happened.Strazdas said:
"Good" and "bad" are subjective opinions to begin with. If anyone's subjective opinion is invalid on the basis of subjectivity, then everyone's is.Strazdas said:
I did not say one word about Crash being chosen for racist reasons. Please reread the post you are responding to. You were talking about how the Academy is infallible because no bad movie could ever be nominated, so I chose a bad movie that got nominated and won.Strazdas said:
Because most of them Suck.Neverhoodian said:
What? All the crimes you listed except perhaps terrorism is quite clearly defined in law with very provable possibilities provided evidence exists. On the other hand it is impossible to determine something as infallable fact if its based entirely on opinion, such as what is a good movie. Especially when one claims that the same institution whose job is to decide that is doing the opposite.JimB said:
I know. thats irrelevant though. because there is no objective measure for what is and isnt a good movie. so my claim of it being great, even despite me not seeing it, is as valid as anyones claim it isnt great. Thats the entire point i was trying to tell you.JimB said:
If you rephrase what I said to something completely different, it gets hard for me to defend my argument.sheppie said:
I'm not saying that unconscious bias is an exclusively white trait. An all black panel would most likely have an unconscious bias that favours black actors and directors. Everyone exhibits unconscious bias, which is why it is important to have a diverse panel, as opposed to a homogeneous one.
If you knock it off with the straw arguments, it might not feel like a tactical retreat. Nowhere did I say that white people are incapable of judging, so stop insisting I did.sheppie said:
I think black people should have been nominated because there are Oscar worthy black performances this year. All things being the same, it is statistically highly unlikely for situations to keep cropping up where no black people have been nominated.
Doing it on a case by case basis seems like a way convenient way ignore the elephant in the room. If you thought it was odd that no caucasian actors/directors were being nominated, even if loads had made good movies, wouldn't you have to start questioning the judging process?
Man if you didn't take that first quote out of context it was fairly clear that he meant that he doesn't believe in innate racism and just worded his statement incorrectly/poorly. Everything else he was saying was about how he doesn't feel it is a default position.thaluikhain said:
Why not bothRichard Gozin-Yu said:
. The statement doesn't really make 100% sense in its own context which is how you can tell he simply phrased his statement wrong. Then it was taken out of the context that prefaces what he actually meant and taken at face value. I mean normally ya I would agree you can't just assume what people mean online but the statement is contradictory to what he was previously saying as written and wouldn't really make sense. It is fairly obvious what he meant to say but if I am way off base here I do hope he comments to let me know.
