Maybe the blacks just had a poor year in the cinema?Why is it automatically a race issue because more white people than black people were nominated?
Surely it's more questionable to forcibly include black actors in the nominations purely to make up the numbers?
I absolutely agree that the board of judges should be more diverse. 96% Caucasian seems a little bit prejudiced to me. But as for the nominations themselves? Fuck off.
(,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 12:12,
archived)
Surely it's more questionable to forcibly include black actors in the nominations purely to make up the numbers?
I absolutely agree that the board of judges should be more diverse. 96% Caucasian seems a little bit prejudiced to me. But as for the nominations themselves? Fuck off.
Well...In a perfect world, then there could easily be years where there're no black actors nominated, and other years when there'd be no white actors. On average, we'd expect nominations more or less to reflect demographics.
BUT... There's a few confounders.
First, for it to be all-white two years in a row is statistically compatible with bare luck, but the longer the run, the fishier it looks. After all, Oscar nominations aren't lotteries. Second, actors can only get nominated for the roles that they get; so the absence of black actors might be an indication that black actors simply aren't being offered the roles. So that might indicate a problem. Third, the Academy Awards are voted on by previous winners, which means that the more white winners there are, the whiter the electorate will be. In a perfect world, this wouldn't matter, but given what we know about implicit bias, it might.
Finally, imagine that there were only black nominees one year, or two years in a row. People would notice that: think of how Fox would respond. The fact that having an all-white list attracts much less attention than would an all-black one suggests that there's something skew-whiff about how we think about race. So the concerns this time around are less to do with who got nominated - they might well all be terrific and deserving in their own right - than with the structures behind the nominations.
(BUT... There's a few confounders.
First, for it to be all-white two years in a row is statistically compatible with bare luck, but the longer the run, the fishier it looks. After all, Oscar nominations aren't lotteries. Second, actors can only get nominated for the roles that they get; so the absence of black actors might be an indication that black actors simply aren't being offered the roles. So that might indicate a problem. Third, the Academy Awards are voted on by previous winners, which means that the more white winners there are, the whiter the electorate will be. In a perfect world, this wouldn't matter, but given what we know about implicit bias, it might.
Finally, imagine that there were only black nominees one year, or two years in a row. People would notice that: think of how Fox would respond. The fact that having an all-white list attracts much less attention than would an all-black one suggests that there's something skew-whiff about how we think about race. So the concerns this time around are less to do with who got nominated - they might well all be terrific and deserving in their own right - than with the structures behind the nominations.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 13:36,
archived)
Also some studios can't afford the $5m required to put a film up for Oscar nomination
(
HappyToast Groat froth,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 13:58,
archived)
The US is 13% black.12.5% of Oscar WINNERS since 1995 were black. There is no bias. This whole thing is bullshit.
(
Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree,
Wed 20 Jan 2016, 13:52,
archived)
In a perfect worldSkin colour would be as much of an issue as eye colour. We wouldn't have tossers like Jamie Foxx play the race card just because Tarantino calls something 'Ghetto' and film and television producers wouldn't need to include the token black/asian person just to make up numbers and avoid being called discriminatory.
It's a vicious cycle. I'm under no illusion that there are still a lot of mouthbreathing racist fuckwits out there, not just in the US, but all over.
The problem isn't solely on the whites though. A whole lot of the black community just love to play the victim whenever the opportunity arises (see Jamie Foxx).
Unfortunately, the world isn't at a stage where we're grown up enough as a community to put the race issues to rest. So instead we'll have to wait another couple of hundred generations until we've all interbred into one lovely shade of mocha. Assuming we manage to exist that long...
(,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 14:12,
archived)
It's a vicious cycle. I'm under no illusion that there are still a lot of mouthbreathing racist fuckwits out there, not just in the US, but all over.
The problem isn't solely on the whites though. A whole lot of the black community just love to play the victim whenever the opportunity arises (see Jamie Foxx).
Unfortunately, the world isn't at a stage where we're grown up enough as a community to put the race issues to rest. So instead we'll have to wait another couple of hundred generations until we've all interbred into one lovely shade of mocha. Assuming we manage to exist that long...
not a single black member in the scooby doo gang. jussayin.
Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 14:44,
archived)
that's disturbing Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 15:12,
archived)
It's the hand on his head.There's such a sense of ownership about it...haha.
(,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 15:19,
archived)
it's all kinds of wrong Smash Monkey lowering the tone of the whole internet,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 15:34,
archived)
He's not complaining.He got all the scoby snacks he could eat.
(
the RAND corporation a.k.a. Kevin Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 21:18,
archived)
mouthbreathing racist fuckwits aren't really the issue here though; it's the implict / unconscious bias that's already been mentionedand it usually manifests itself as positive discrimination in favour of what you are familiar / comfortable with / your "normal" instead of overt racism or sexism
(
custard,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 16:26,
archived)
Maybe the blacks just had a poor year in the cinema? The blacks? Is that what you said?I'd have thought it would be easy to find out if 'the blacks' had a poor year in the cinema, just ask one of them. They all speak for each other, right?
(
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 16:18,
archived)
What would you call them?Black people and white people? African Americans? Whites and non-whites?
I don't think referring to ethnic groups as blacks and/or whites is particularly racially charged. 'Blackies' maybe. Certainly 'nignogs'
(,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 16:39,
archived)
I don't think referring to ethnic groups as blacks and/or whites is particularly racially charged. 'Blackies' maybe. Certainly 'nignogs'
not "the blacks""black people" != "the blacks" (although "people of color" is what I would use in the US)
( custard,
Tue 19 Jan 2016, 16:51,
archived)