Really? It's more egregious than if it hadn't started happening at all?
Does this mean you believe there should always be X number of minority nominees, and that if there aren't in a given year, that needs to be "off-set" in subsequent years?
You're kind of talking past me here: the statement I made isn't about this specific instance. It's an explanation as to why people dismiss criticisms like the one you're making right now: because it starts with racism as its null hypothesis. Disparities are taken as prima facie evidence of systemic racism. That's where a lot of people who do think racism is real and serious, like myself, get off the train.
Pretty sure this is missing the point, but nevermind. Here's some concrete data: African-Americans are a little over 12% of the population and have made up about 10% of the Oscar nominations since 2000. For Oscar winners, it's actually higher than their share of the population.
Because if being a racial minority is a fundamentally different experience (and it seems reasonable to believe that it is), you can't cordon off the implications of that fact when they're inconvenient. Different life experiences inevitably means different choices, which mean more different life experiences, and so on. Case in point: what do you think the racial demographics of country music and hip-hop are? Do you think those are evidence of racism, of differences in choice, or both? And how do you know?
Go another level down: let's say the initial choices about how many people enter what industry are subtly influenced by racial issues, but that each industry is largely a meritocracy for those already inside it. What then?
Go another level down: let's say the initial choices about how many people enter what industry are subtly influenced by racial issues, but that each industry is largely a meritocracy for those already inside it. What then?
Nor should they be so quick to make or even defend allegations of racism.
I'd love a version of this discussion where the seriousness of racism was directly reflected in how careful we were about leveling accusations of it. Instead, it gets diluted by the cognitive dissonance of people who think it's very serious indeed, but not in a way that requires they exhibit much caution about who to brand with it.
I'd love a version of this discussion where the seriousness of racism was directly reflected in how careful we were about leveling accusations of it. Instead, it gets diluted by the cognitive dissonance of people who think it's very serious indeed, but not in a way that requires they exhibit much caution about who to brand with it.
It wouldn't really do that. But I'm all for it: it should be overhauled, and it should be more diverse. And I can simultaneously agree with this, while still thinking that assuming racism based on fluctuations in tiny nominee sample sizes is a major leap of logic that's working backwards from a conclusion.
I'm not sure how to argue with someone who's just saying something is "arguable." We'll find out if it's arguable by arguing about it. Here, I'll start: no, trying to change culture-wide problems by enforcing quasi-quotas at the highest levels of specific industries is not a good or pragmatic idea.
Uh...nobody? But then, that isn't mutually exclusive with anything I'm saying.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.