Originally posted by 80sBaby
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 Bardock42Well first off the actors who are taking a stand have they said any of this prior to this year ? Have any specific people been speculated on as being biased/prejudiced/racist ? Or just because a few people didn't get the noms who are of color you believe just an accusation is enough. That's despicable tbh.
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 first off the actors who are taking a stand have they said any of this prior to this year ? Have any specific people been speculated on as being biased/prejudiced/racist ? Or just because a few people didn't get the noms who are of color you believe just an accusation is enough. That's despicable tbh.
As far as I know, other than Jada, yes the same people have complained before.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Well first off the actors who are taking a stand have they said any of this prior to this year ? Have any specific people been speculated on as being biased/prejudiced/racist ? Or just because a few people didn't get the noms who are of color you believe just an accusation is enough. That's despicable tbh.
I think you are not following the line of argument that's been put forth.
Originally posted by 80sBabyWell when human opinion is involved since you think this is a given what are you crying about ? Did the same actors boycott when they were nominated ?
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 Bardock42
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?
Well, the statistical history argument doesn't hold much weight given that the Oscars go back to the 1920s and this country does have a history in the film industry of people of color not even being allowed on film and being portrayed by whites. So, looking at contemporary times, as in since 1985, and the fact that various people of color have actually won numerous awards, and taking into consideration that people of color is not just black people, but also means that, for example, films like Life of Pi and Slumdog Millionaire, or films like The Sixth Sense or the aforementioned No Country for Old Men, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, have all won awards, I'm not convinced the issue is that the academy won't vote for people of color so much as the pool of films for which people of color can be picked from is a lot more diverse than 4 films with black male leads in 2015, so the argument doesn't hold as much merit with me, and perhaps people of color should just make more good films so there's more competition amongst the four to five hundred films released in a year which get whittled down to 5 nominations.
Also, maybe more of those films shouldn't be comedies, romantic comedies, buddy cop comedies, urban comedies, or urban dramas. Maybe expand the range of genres. Maybe put more effort into other films besides period pieces and biopics?
Originally posted by quanchi112
You asked a question and I answered it. I want evidence not a blanketed statement. What evidence was there prejudice/racism this time ? Go ahead and answer.
The evidence is a continued inflation of white nominees and winners vs. POC. You'd be right if this was a single instance, but not only did this happen twice in a row, throughout the history (and also in recent history), POC have been far underrepresented vs. the membership of the Screen Actors Guild, or the demographics of the US as a whole.
There is definite racial bias in the selection process of the Academy Awards (the Academy obviously recognises that and is implementing changes to make it better)
Speaking of films this just peels open a whole new can of worms. It's not race that is the only thing that suffers in these places. Barely any science fiction films nominated for best picture in the last 80 years? With none that have won?
Speaking of comedies, hell, how often do you see a comedy film get best picture? Or a director get best director for a comedy film? You know it really seems like the academy has a plethora of problems that go welllll beyond "no black folk in sight".
Originally posted by quanchi112
Will Smith and the wages he gets for films is a travesty. It's so hypocritical of him to cry foul. You weren't nominated. Boo hoo. Life must be so hard for him.
To be fair Will Smith suffers from racism more then most. I mean after his stellar performance in "After Earth" is it anything but motherf*cking racism that he wasn't included in Independence Day 2? I bet they had their script meetings wearing nothing but Klan robes. It's also not like you could call the dude out for nepotism either so..damn, he is fair and he suffers from awful racism. Poor Will. I guess it's more then just parents who don't understand, am I right?
Originally posted by Bardock42So you are saying we don't go for the best choices but have to do a certain number of black candidates to appease those who cry foul. This is a subjective award and it's silly. The same actors didn't boycott prior to and even won an award. It's silly and again cries for not the best choices but to put up enough nominees of color to appease those who want to cry foul without proof. You didn't prove the judges based their decisions on racism or prejudice.
The evidence is a continued inflation of white nominees and winners vs. POC. You'd be right if this was a single instance, but not only did this happen twice in a row, throughout the history (and also in recent history), POC have been far underrepresented vs. the membership of the Screen Actors Guild, or the demographics of the US as a whole.There is definite racial bias in the selection process of the Academy Awards (the Academy obviously recognises that and is implementing changes to make it better)
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Well, the statistical history argument doesn't hold much weight given that the Oscars go back to the 1920s and this country does have a history in the film industry of people of color not even being allowed on film and being portrayed by whites. So, looking at contemporary times, as in since 1985, and the fact that various people of color have actually won numerous awards, and taking into consideration that people of color is not just black people, but also means that, for example, films like Life of Pi and Slumdog Millionaire, or films like The Sixth Sense or the aforementioned No Country for Old Men, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, have all won awards, I'm not convinced the issue is that the academy won't vote for people of color so much as the pool of films for which people of color can be picked from is a lot more diverse than 4 films with black male leads in 2015, so the argument doesn't hold as much merit with me, and perhaps people of color should just make more good films so there's more competition amongst the four to five hundred films released in a year which get whittled down to 5 nominations.Also, maybe more of those films shouldn't be comedies, romantic comedies, buddy cop comedies, urban comedies, or urban dramas. Maybe expand the range of genres. Maybe put more effort into other films besides period pieces and biopics?
Again, the argument never was that the Academy WON'T vote for People of Color (if that was the argument your counter examples would be enough). The argument is that it is biased in favor of white people. And that is true from 85 on, and it's still true from 2000 on.
Additionally the demographics of the voting base in itself is very skewed and just doesn't reflect the membership of the Academy nor the Screen Actors Guild.
I agree with the argument that some of it is based on the racism within the film industry as a whole, i.e. that the voters already have to pick out of films skewed towards white actors, but that's a problem in itself, and one that the Academy Awards with its immense influence can also make better.
White people make more movies than people of color, though. If 500 films are released in a year and amongst that 500, 30-40 are written, directed, and acted by people of color, they're facing 460+ other films for 5 slots in various categories. The issue with representation is the number of quality films being put out and the amount of competition they face in the market. Concussion, Straight Outta Compton, Beasts of No Country, and Creed versus the field, when the field is over 400 films, isn't that hard a pill to swallow. There were a lot of good films in 2015.
Originally posted by quanchi112
So you are saying we don't go for the best choices but have to do a certain number of black candidates to appease those who cry foul. This is a subjective award and it's silly. The same actors didn't boycott prior to and even won an award. It's silly and again cries for not the best choices but to put up enough nominees of color to appease those who want to cry foul without proof. You didn't prove the judges based their decisions on racism or prejudice.
I am saying the Academy (as it agrees) should ensure its demographics are actually in line with the current times. I also think that the discussion of this racial bias is valuable and may change the minds of voters (who are always subjective, pretending that they are just objectively finding "the best", and they just happen to be white, is indigenous) and make them consider whether they have prejudices they hadn't thought of before.