#Oscar's so White

I personally mean people of color. When Javier Bardem won for No Country for Old Men no one blinked an eye, just like when Forrest Whitaker won for Last King of Scotland. Those films were great and deserved to win. The issue in 2016 is that we're in the midst of some social upheaval on various fronts in this country so any perceived slight becomes a cause to rally for. When Will Smith was deservedly nominated for Ali none of this was an issue, but since the Concussion film has some social significance due to recent events in the NFL and coupled with racial tensions some parties feel the film should carry more weight. Just like Selma last year. The voters not considering that public perception of social importance is perceived as racism. There was a stronger argument for Denzel's portrayal of Malcolm X, which was an all-time great, than there is for any of these films.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

Racism and prejudice aren't the same thing. I specifically said I don't think they're racist so not sure why you're harping on that in response to me.

My point has always been since inherent prejudices exist, it makes sense to diversify the judging panel, if only to better ensure everyone is included in a more equitable manner. As I said, it won't guarantee more POC nominees but it certainly won't hurt, will it?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

Maybe you mean people of color, but for a lot this just comes down to black people. The same blacks with blacks only awards on their channels specifically for blacks. You see it's okay for them to be racist because people were racist to them.

The same blacks who assume putting a black person on the board guarantee's they will vote for a black person. Whether it's a Denzel as Malcolm X type performance or it's Keenan from friggin "Good Burger".

Of course if you really wanted to fix shit? No race would have more then a 50% presence on the board. But see that would involve getting rid of people based on skin color which is a no no. Getting rid of someone based on skin is bad, adding someone based on skin is good. You see if you behave racist towards a group you feel hasn't been oppressed? It's just somehow..meh.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I personally mean people of color. When Javier Bardem won for No Country for Old Men no one blinked an eye, just like when Forrest Whitaker won for Last King of Scotland. Those films were great and deserved to win. The issue in 2016 is that we're in the midst of some social upheaval on various fronts in this country so any perceived slight becomes a cause to rally for. When Will Smith was deservedly nominated for Ali none of this was an issue, but since the Concussion film has some social significance due to recent events in the NFL and coupled with racial tensions some parties feel the film should carry more weight. Just like Selma last year. The voters not considering that public perception of social importance is perceived as racism. There was a stronger argument for Denzel's portrayal of Malcolm X, which was an all-time great, than there is for any of these films.

Oh I agree that the time we live in plays a big part in why this is happening. But it's also not the first time people have complained about the Academy's lack of diversity, either. I'm not saying it's this huge problem (it's the Academy Awards after all) but I do think its not a bad thing to look at or talk about.

From what I've read/heard, Denzel wasn't nominated more due to pressure from Muslims than any sort of racism/prejudice. Apparently they didn't like how the film insinuated that Malcolm was killed by Muslims.

Originally posted by 80sBaby
Racism and prejudice aren't the same thing. I specifically said I don't think they're racist so not sure why you're harping on that in response to me.

My point has always been since inherent prejudices exist, it makes sense to diversify the judging panel, if only to better ensure everyone is included in a more equitable manner. As I said, it won't guarantee more POC nominees but it certainly won't hurt, will it?

I was actually replying to Bardock. You simply piggy backed on his question.

And while prejudice and racism can be independent, mutually exclusive issues, let's not be coy here and try to mince words about what the prejudice that is being insinuated about the Academy voters is. It's being insinuated due to the ethnicity of the characters and actors in the films.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It would have to be actual evidence of racism. I can't simply assume that when a white person beats a black person in something that is judge or media voted that racism was the determining factor, just like when a black person beats a white person out for a nomination that it was simply the filling of an affirmative action quota or political correctness. Things can and do stand on their own merit. Sports Journalists didn't vote more for Ken Griffey Jr.'s entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because he was black.

It's not an admission that racism doesn't exist to hold this position, it's simply an acknowledgement that there's no evidence that racism was the cause, as well as acknowledging that this same academy has awarded films, actors, writers, directors, and special effects crews of various ethnicities in recent times. Honestly, the real issue with representation at the Oscars has to do with there not being a large enough pool of quality films and roles from people of color. People are hung up over basically 4 films with Black Male leads when over four hundred movies were released in 2015. Johnny Depp likely gives two shits that his portrayal of Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, which was dope, wasn't nominated. Not getting a nomination doesn't diminish how good the films were.

This just restates the question though. Of course "evidence" is what would convince you. What is the evidence you need to convince you? Can you come up with any set up that doesn't involve racist people admitting that they are racist, which seems far fetched?

Originally posted by 80sBaby
Tje fact that everyone has them, as you admitted, means they have to influence the decision making process on some level. Even if only on a subconscious level, which is my point.

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe you mean people of color, but for a lot this just comes down to black people. The same blacks with blacks only awards on their channels specifically for blacks. You see it's okay for them to be racist because people were racist to them.

The same blacks who assume putting a black person on the board guarantee's they will vote for a black person. Whether it's a Denzel as Malcolm X type performance or it's Keenan from friggin "Good Burger".

Of course if you really wanted to fix shit? No race would have more then a 50% presence on the board. But see that would involve getting rid of people based on skin color which is a no no. Getting rid of someone based on skin is bad, adding someone based on skin is good. You see if you behave racist towards a group you feel hasn't been oppressed? It's just somehow..meh.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What would convince either of you (MF or Quan) that there is racial bias in play when it comes to Oscar nominations, short of voters coming out and admitting to it?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Things like BET Awards aren't just for black people though.

And they have a shitload of white judges, correctamundo?

Ohh before you go side question! Let us say two years from now all these cute little changes have been enacted. The nominee's come out and there isn't a black person in sight. Do we still see people whine?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Well if you accuse them of using prejudice or racism then prove it. Are you saying people can just say this without any proof and be ok with that. Are you serious ?

That's what I'm trying to do. I would like to know what evidence would prove to you that racism was involved?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Well if you accuse them of using prejudice or racism then prove it. Are you saying people can just say this without any proof and be ok with that. Are you serious ?

Admittedly it's a good plan. It's a lawyer's wet dream. A lawyer literally just came all over his new silk sheets 🙁. Are you gonna pay for it to be cleaned?

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe mean people of color, but for a lot this just comes down to black people. The same blacks with blacks only awards on their channels specifically for blacks. You see it's okay for them to be racist because people were racist to them.

The same blacks who assume putting a black person on the board guarantee's they will vote for a black person. Whether it's a Denzel as Malcolm X type performance or it's Keenan from friggin "Good Burger".

Of course if you really wanted to fix shit? No race would have more then a 50% presence on the board. But see that would involve getting rid of people based on skin color which is a no no. Getting rid of someone based on skin is bad, adding someone based on skin is good. You see if you behave racist towards a group you feel hasn't been oppressed? It's just somehow..meh.

Well if you're going to ignore the reasons for things like the BET awards, Image Awards, etc then we can't really have an honest discussion. It's not as though the playing field is level (yrs we've made great strides but c'mon son!) Those awards, while nice, don't hold the same acclaim as the AA, Grammy's and the like.

Your second point is a good one. How do you go about eliminating people to add more? How many seats are there? Also, I'd find it funny how much the majority complains now about racism when they're experiencing only a fraction of what minorities deal with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
This just restates the question though. Of course "evidence" is what would convince you. What is the evidence you need to convince you? Can you come up with any set up that doesn't involve racist people admitting that they are racist, which seems far fetched?

Something similar to the email leaks out of Sony Studios. I'd need some emails or recordings of members of the voting committee expressing some sort of prejudice or racism towards the films or actors. Sans that I'm not going to assume it was a factor. I didn't assume Djimon Hounsou lost for Blood Diamond because of prejudice. Plus DiCaprio lost for the same film at the same awards show.

Originally posted by Surtur
And they have a shitload of white judges, correctamundo?

Ohh before you go side question! Let us say two years from now all these cute little changes have been enacted. The nominee's come out and there isn't a black person in sight. Do we still see people whine?

No, they likely wouldn't still whine because they wouldn't have leg to stand on, which is the point.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You are the one saying there was prejudice involved so let's hear some evidence to support it. Prove your claim. Don't throw what ifs at me and coulda, woulda, shouldas.

The evidence is that they're human. You already agreed that we all have prejudices so there's nothing more I need to prove. I think you're confusing inherent prejudices with outright racism. There's a difference.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Something similar to the email leaks out of Sony Studios. I'd need some emails or recordings of members of the voting committee expressing some sort of prejudice or racism towards the films or actors. Sans that I'm not going to assume it was a factor. I didn't assume Djimon Hounsou lost for Blood Diamond because of prejudice. Plus DiCaprio lost for the same film at the same awards show.

Well, that would prove some overt, active racism, however I don't think that's what most people claim is happening. What people say is that these predominantly white voters subconsciously slightly prefer white people over POC when voting, and that ends up skewing towards white nominees.

How would this actual claim be provable to you, besides the statistical history of nominations, which apparently aren't sufficient?

Originally posted by 80sBaby
Well if you're going to ignore the reasons for things like the BET awards, Image Awards, etc then we can't really have an honest discussion. It's not as though the playing field is level (yrs we've made great strides but c'mon son!) Those awards, while nice, don't hold the same acclaim as the AA, Grammy's and the like.

So it's like basically a double edged sword. Why do they need their own awards? Well shit because racism and inequality. The playing field isn't level. Okay, you'd think the story would end there, but nope because a crappy award show on BET doesn't hold the same prestige so it's still not good enough.

This is why I said just create an award for each race. It's the only actual way to make sure racism is least likely to come into play.

Your second point is a good one. How do you go about eliminating people to add more? How many seats are there? Also, I'd find it funny how much the majority complains now about racism when they're experiencing only a fraction of what minorities deal with.

You don't go about eliminating them, that is the problem because if you do you got rid of them due to being white. Which is just as bad as someone not getting a nomination due to being black.

Also yes you can surely point minorities deal with racism more then others. This is true, but a few things: doesn't mean it's suddenly okay for them to be racist. Also, wouldn't people who apparently act as if they are oppressed 24/7 be a bit more sympathetic and sensitive towards being racist towards..well, anyone? Whether it's a white or an asian or whoever. Otherwise isn't that like a black former slave going "the slaves Moses freed are just whiny c*nts".

But see that is the most hilarious part: the fixes they put in won't really go very far towards fixing shit. It's like if a tire pops off your car and I put it back on via sticking it to your car with a bunch of chewing gum. Yep, it has all the appearances of being fixed, but what happens when you try to drive it?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Something similar to the email leaks out of Sony Studios. I'd need some emails or recordings of members of the voting committee expressing some sort of prejudice or racism towards the films or actors. Sans that I'm not going to assume it was a factor. I didn't assume Djimon Hounsou lost for Blood Diamond because of prejudice. Plus DiCaprio lost for the same film at the same awards show.

But if it's subconscious, there'd be nothing like that. Saying the judges have prejudices isn't the same as saying they're completely racist. People keep using the terms interchangeably but they have different meanings.