#Oscarssowhite

Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
Really? It's more egregious than if it hadn't started happening at all?
The fact that we are having this discussion at all would suggest that the answer is "yes".

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?
Not necessarily - even I know that kind of reasoning is ultimately more likely to do harm than good. My issue is more to do with people referencing all the recent black nominees and winners when arguing against #oscarssowhite as if their individual successes are supposed to disprove (or at least derail) arguments to the contrary. Moviefan555 took it even further by arguing that that 12 Years A Slave winning Best Picture indicated that the Academy wasn't racist, though that has more to do with the Academy's own particular preferences when it comes to acknowledging black performers and narratives.

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.
This is a good point, even though it is a bit reminiscent of "the people who point out racism are the real racists" logic. I can see how such a hypothesis would get taken to illogical extremes, but I can also understand the general reasoning behind such a hypothesis, especially when it draws responses along the lines of "you're overreacting/looking for things to get upset about" that can easily come across as denial-riddled deflections more so than solid counter-arguments.

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.
Yeah, I suppose I'll leave this one. If that's the concrete data I get to work with, then trying to extrapolate one way or the other would be kind of pointless.

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?
That doesn't sound too different to the way it is now.

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.
This is true, though this is also something of a side-effect when it comes to noting certain discrepancies in the logic and arguments of others. Considering the racially charged nature of the #Oscarssowhite issue, one wonders just where this much anger is coming from. Even if it is just annoyance at a perceived over-reaction on the part of the hashtag's supporters,

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 thought the fact that said sample sizes weren't fluctuating was the problem, hence such a significant reaction happening that was going to draw attention lest the pattern continue for a third consecutive year. Even if it is just a coincidence both times, the fact that it can easily be identified as something more should say a lot more than if it was just over-reacting.

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.
"Enforcing" is a strong word in this context, but would it really hurt that much to at least entertain the notion of change? The Academy has been trying to ease away from their stuffy reputation in recent years, what with the expansion of the Best Picture category to accommodate more popular fare and all. Attempting to introduce new members who could shake up the status quo from within doesn't have to be a total compromise of their values even as it shows that they are at least willing to consider outside perspectives on previously unquestioned practices.

Uh...nobody? But then, that isn't mutually exclusive with anything I'm saying.
Yeah, "cultural policing" is a bit of an extreme term that probably exaggerates the importance of the Academy's collective decisions regarding the best films.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Welcome to the human race...
What? Did it offend you?

Sorry, I didn't know you were black and named Will Smith.
And I didn't know you were Phil Anselmo.

I had to look up the word cishet as I've never heard it before. I found out it's an ugly word on par with the n word.

From the Urban Dictionary.

cishet
An abbreviation of cisgendered (opposite of "transgender") heterosexual: a person that identifies as the sex they were born as and are attracted to the opposite. Mostly used in social justice circles as an ad hominem attack to people who have to audacity to be born identifying with their birth gender and have an opinion different than theirs/zheirs/xirs.
Every word looks ugly on Urban Dictionary. Also, the fact that you consider it on par with the n-word yet you have no problem spelling one out and not the other should indicate that it is nowhere near as bad.

I know the common stereotype regarding political correctness is that the only people who care about it are stuck-up prudes with no sense of humour who are constantly undermining people's jokes because they're super-sensitive or whatever. However, I find it rather ironic when people like Cleese act like humour is this Big Sacred Thing because it's inherently "critical", but when people criticise politically incorrect jokes (possibly pointing out the problems by - shock horror - using an entirely different kind of humour), the people making the jokes complain about people "taking things too seriously" and trying to censor them. Who watches the watchmen, etc.

In a way it might as well be. Even if it's not meant to be offensive, why go around calling a heterosexual non-transgender person a "cishet?" These words are not necessary. They're part of the transgender community's beliefs about gender that they're trying to enforce on everyone else. It might as well be like calling a gay person a "fa**ot." They're giving people not like them names and telling them to accept it under the guise that it's not supposed to be offensive. That might as well be like saying black people are "colored people" or an n word or whatever.
Honestly, I just wanted to use an abbreviation of "cisgender and heterosexual", since I was trying to literally describe certain actors' actual characteristics and not insult them, and the fact that I have had to type even more words to justify my decision just made me realise how silly it was.



Please hold your applause till after the me.
Since when does the Academy ever had a racial quota to fill out, all white people have been nominated before and no on kicked up the slightest fuss, and it was after the Civil Rights movement.

This is just because Will Smith wasn't nominated for Best Actor, you pulled of an accent, what else did you do.



I posted the video for False Writer, but I am glad you watched it Iroquois.

As for the humor, some humor that is un-PC will shock and offend in a good way (South Park, Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles and The Producers, etc), others are lazy people trying more to offend then anything else and don't care if they are funny. And then you have Seth McFarlene whose mostly lazy but occasionally is funny.



And then you have Seth McFarlene whose mostly lazy but occasionally is funny.
If you are talking about Family Guy here then i'm not sure he deserves much credit whether good or bad for that, its like crediting mostly Matt Groening for The Simpsons success when he didn't actually play that big of a part in developing the shows characters and humour. If you were including American Dad then he deserves zero credit other than voice acting and nearly destroying the show with the awful first few episodes he played a big part in, since then he has only gave his voice. American Dad is Matt Weitzmann and Mike Bakers show. if you were including The Cleveland Show then who cares about that?

If you were just talking about Seth in general then disregard all of that, i only know his shows barely seen him outside of them.



And then you have Seth McFarlene whose mostly lazy but occasionally is funny.
He had Family Guy, The Cleveland Show, and American Dad.
ALL THREE OF THESE on television at the same time.

Not even counting his movies.
What an ignorant statement to call one of the hardest working people in show business lazy.



Every word looks ugly on Urban Dictionary.
Yeah, i understand people not familiar with the site clicking on that as the first link shown, but i'm baffled that after reading the description they don't realize it is full of Ad Homs and personal bias, or at least the fact its supposed to be ridiculous but i guess Cishet = N*****. Its like asking a hardcore liberal what a conservative is or vice versa.

Here is the SJW description on it

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
#1:

A social justice warrior reads an essay about a form of internal misogyny where women and girls insult stereotypical feminine activities and characteristics in order to boost themselves over other women.

The SJW absorbs this and later complains in response to a Huffington Post article about a 10-year-old feminist's letter, because the 10-year-old called the color pink "prissy".


From a proud Cishet



He had Family Guy, The Cleveland Show, and American Dad.
ALL THREE OF THESE on television at the same time.

Not even counting his movies.
What an ignorant statement to call one of the hardest working people in show business lazy.
Other than creating the characters by that i mean designing them not developing their characters, and giving the basic outline of the show (Family Ties ripoff, not joking that's exactly what it was supposed to be with Stan as the Conservative and Hayley as the Liberal) which was quickly abandoned by Mike and Matt the real reasons for the shows success. American Dad would have been cancelled years ago if Seth stayed involved which i think is evident by the awful first few episodes, obviously some will think it is all bad but i'm sure even they would agree the first few are noticebaly so.

Fair enough on Family Guy and The Cleveland Show (which was cancelled) but all he deserves credit for on AD is the initial character designs and the voice acting.



He had Family Guy, The Cleveland Show, and American Dad.
ALL THREE OF THESE on television at the same time.

Not even counting his movies.
What an ignorant statement to call one of the hardest working people in show business lazy.
I said his comedy can be lazy. His production is in overtime. He has a lot more misses with his comedy then hits though.



If you are talking about Family Guy here then i'm not sure he deserves much credit whether good or bad for that, its like crediting mostly Matt Groening for The Simpsons success when he didn't actually play that big of a part in developing the shows characters and humour. If you were including American Dad then he deserves zero credit other than voice acting and nearly destroying the show with the awful first few episodes he played a big part in, since then he has only gave his voice. American Dad is Matt Weitzmann and Mike Bakers show. if you were including The Cleveland Show then who cares about that?

If you were just talking about Seth in general then disregard all of that, i only know his shows barely seen him outside of them.
I was talking about his brand of comedy more then his work load. That being said if he would make more movies like Ted I would not complain.



The fact that we are having this discussion at all would suggest that the answer is "yes".
This doesn't follow at all. The fact that somebody thinks this is worth talking about in no way, shape, or form, says anything about whether or not this is worse or better than some counterfactual about it never happening at all.

Not necessarily - even I know that kind of reasoning is ultimately more likely to do harm than good. My issue is more to do with people referencing all the recent black nominees and winners when arguing against #oscarssowhite as if their individual successes are supposed to disprove (or at least derail) arguments to the contrary. Moviefan555 took it even further by arguing that that 12 Years A Slave winning Best Picture indicated that the Academy wasn't racist, though that has more to do with the Academy's own particular preferences when it comes to acknowledging black performers and narratives.
I'm a little unnerved that the answer was "not necessarily" rather than "no." Feels like that should be a slam dunk negative.

But putting that aside, I think most people agree that having given an Oscar to 12 Years a Slave doesn't magically prove there's no racism in Hollywood. It does seem like pretty clear evidence that there's not some kind of hard racial ceiling, or pervasive racism, however.

This is a good point, even though it is a bit reminiscent of "the people who point out racism are the real racists" logic.
This doesn't strike me as the kind of summary that the people you're describing would feel accurately reflects their position. How about "people who see everything through the prism of race are the real racists"? Not that there has to be just one type of racist (or racism).

Yeah, I suppose I'll leave this one. If that's the concrete data I get to work with, then trying to extrapolate one way or the other would be kind of pointless.
Not sure I follow. The point is that, relative to population, recent Oscar nominees only slightly under-represent African-Americans, and recent Oscar winners over-represent them. This doesn't give you pause about whether or not there's actually a problem?

That doesn't sound too different to the way it is now.
Right. Which is why I asked the question that way: how do you determine what portion of this is racism and what portion reflects differences in choice? And do you think it serves discussions of racism to make no distinction upfront between outright prejudice and industries that simply don't attract minorities to begin with, even if they find themselves in a merit-based system once inside?

This is true, though this is also something of a side-effect when it comes to noting certain discrepancies in the logic and arguments of others. Considering the racially charged nature of the #Oscarssowhite issue, one wonders just where this much anger is coming from. Even if it is just annoyance at a perceived over-reaction on the part of the hashtag's supporters,
I think the anger comes from the fact that if any event can be interpreted as maybe being racist, someone interprets it that way.

I thought the fact that said sample sizes weren't fluctuating was the problem, hence such a significant reaction happening that was going to draw attention lest the pattern continue for a third consecutive year.
"Lest the pattern continue for a third consecutive year." Translation: people will second-guess their votes next year? That seems like a Pyrrhic victory

Even if it is just a coincidence both times, the fact that it can easily be identified as something more should say a lot more than if it was just over-reacting.
Or it says that people are eager to read racist narratives into things. Again, you can't cite the mere existence of the accusation as evidence of it being right.

"Enforcing" is a strong word in this context, but would it really hurt that much to at least entertain the notion of change?
Would it really hurt that much to say things like "entertain the notion of change" rather than use glib hashtags or outright accusations of racism? Phrasing matters, when you're throwing around serious accusations.

Yeah, "cultural policing" is a bit of an extreme term that probably exaggerates the importance of the Academy's collective decisions regarding the best films.
I was using the term to describe the cultural interrogation that's going on right now. That's the policing: not any actual threat, but the implicit understanding that if you don't meet these hazily-defined quotas, we're all going to have A Serious Conversation about whether or not you're racist. Which, like it or not, and whether it's justified or not, is tantamount to a threat.



Not sure I follow. The point is that, relative to population, recent Oscar nominees only slightly under-represent African-Americans, and recent Oscar winners over-represent them. This doesn't give you pause about whether or not there's actually a problem?
Unless I missed a post, I've only seen comparisons to the Black population of the U.S. here, which is not a fair indicator seeing as Americans aren't the only people being nominated.



You're quite right, but if anything, that only makes the point stronger: the percentage of black people in the United Kingdom (~3%), for example, is something like a fourth of the percentage that we have in the United States.

Of course, we're not just drawing from the U.S. and U.K., but I'd say that makes up a pretty huge chunk of the movie industry worldwide. It's not going to be incredibly precise (too many variables), but we're really just trying to establish a general baseline of expectation.