whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy
And I addressed that here:
The whitewashing by the Academy occurs in the open - not behind closed doors - since it's no secret that it's 94% white (and 77% male) which isn't an accurate representation of our countries demographics.
Those articles do not say, as you did, that the Academy is racist because it is mostly white. Racist BS.
Those articles state this:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/30/entertainment/la-et-mn-race-and-movies-20131030
"USC study: Minorities still under-represented in popular films"
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-women-minorities-underrepresented-actors-directors.html
Study finds that women and minorities are still underrepresented among actors, directors and executives
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ucla-diversity-study-blasts-hollywood-679871
'UCLA Diversity Study Blasts Hollywood as 'Woefully Out of Touch'
http://time.com/7278/agencies-hollywood-racial-diversity/
The Hidden Factor in Hollywoods Racial Diversity Problem
And I address the connection with this:
If there is racial bias in directing, writing, acting, and casting then there MUST be racial biased in the Academy since the Academy is made up of those very same directors, writers, actors, and casting that exhibit racial bias.
The fact is the Economist article says whitewashing does not occur behind the closed doors of the Academy,
And I addressed that here:
The whitewashing by the Academy occurs in the open - not behind closed doors - since it's no secret that it's 94% white (and 77% male) which isn't an accurate representation of our countries demographics.
You have failed to prove that those deciding nominations did so by racism.
You can deny the sky is blue. You can deny water is wet. You can deny there's no racial bias anywhere in this world. It's within your right to remain ignorant. The facts still exist - whether you refuse to acknowledge them or not - isn't going to impact the changes moving forward.
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

So Nominations:
The article says
whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy
pointing this out does
Those articles do not say, as you did, that the Academy is racist because it is mostly white. Racist BS.
The fact is the Economist article says whitewashing does not occur behind the closed doors of the Academy, and that
is
where nominations are decided.
You have failed to prove that those deciding nominations did so by racism.

Nominations and racism.
So Nominations:
These years are far from the first
whitewashing in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were nominated in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar nominations went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st cent5b4ury, a trend that the Academy's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.
And Racism:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/30/entertainment/la-et-mn-race-and-movies-20131030
"USC study: Minorities still under-represented in popular films"
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-women-minorities-underrepresented-actors-directors.html
Study finds that women and minorities are still underrepresented among actors, directors and executives
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ucla-diversity-study-blasts-hollywood-679871
'UCLA Diversity Study Blasts Hollywood as 'Woefully Out of Touch'
http://time.com/7278/agencies-hollywood-racial-diversity/
The Hidden Factor in Hollywoods Racial Diversity Problem
saying whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy, and since the nominations are decided behind the closed doors of the Academy, you must agree that the nominations are not racist.
16d0No. I don't agree. (see how easy that was?)
And this is why:
The whitewashing by the Academy occurs in the open - not behind closed doors - since it's no secret that it's 94% white (and 77% male) which isn't an accurate representation of our countries demographics.
Pointing out that a group of people is mostly white does not prove said group is racist
But pointing this out does:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/30/entertainment/la-et-mn-race-and-movies-20131030
"USC study: Minorities still under-represented in popular films"
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-women-minorities-underrepresented-actors-directors.html
Study finds that women and minorities are still underrepresented among actors, directors and executives
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ucla-diversity-study-blasts-hollywood-679871
'UCLA Diversity Study Blasts Hollywood as 'Woefully Out of Touch'
http://time.com/7278/agencies-hollywood-racial-diversity/
The Hidden Factor in Hollywoods Racial Diversity Problem
The topic under discussion is nominations and racism.
And the connection was addressed here:
If there is racial bias in directing, writing, acting, and casting then there MUST be racial biased in the Academy since the Academy is made up of those very same directors, writers, actors, and casting that exhibit racial bias.
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

I will answer your last posts here.
what are you talking about
Nominations and racism.
It specifically says "behind closed doors"
Since you agree with the article saying whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy, and since the nominations are decided behind the closed doors of the Academy, you must agree that the nominations are not racist.
i addressed that already when I replied with this:
The whitewashing by the Academy occurs in the open - not behind closed doors - since it's no secret that it's 94% white (and 77% male) which isn't an accurate representation of our countries demographics.
Pointing out that a group of people is mostly white does not prove said group is racist (an inference the author of the Economist article does not state).
I dare you to dispute there to be any racial bias in directing, writing, acting, and casting
The topic under discussion is nominations and racism.

deceitful attempt to position the article as saying the nominations were made because of racism.
An award winning professor came to the sam2000e conclusion. Is he being deceitful too?
I ask direct questions:
Do you at least agree that there is racial biased for whites over minorities as it pertains to directors, writers, actors, and casting? Yes or No?
Do you concede that Hispanics and Asians are being discriminated against? Yes or No?
And you answer with this:
I told you I don't dispute what the article says,
Lol another non-committal soft vague answer. I didn't ask if you disputed the article - since we have already established that four days ago. I asked your opinion on the above questions.
Do you ever get tired of being a wimp? Why can't you take you balls out of your mothers purse and say "Yes. I agree and here's why" or "No. I don't agree and here's why?"
Own your opinions with conviction - whether they in actuality be right or wrong. I disagree with a lot of posters on here however, I at least respect them because they aren't scared to give their answer. Get a backbone. If someone asks a direct yes or no question most people should believe in themselves enough to give a direct yes or no answer - and state why.
Anyway, moving forward this is from the article you don't dispute:
The view behind the scenes is perhaps more revealing. Blacks really are much more under-represented in the directors chair, where they account for 6% of directors of the top 600 films, according to the Annenberg study. Black women are nearly nonexistent there (two of the 600, Ms DuVernay being one). These are the numbers that critics of Hollywood should be most concerned about, along with the dearth of top roles for Hispanic and Asian actors. Best Actor nominations and winsin which black actors have done decently, 2015 and
I know why you're too scared to directly answer the questions because you KNOW where I'm going with this - if there is racial bias in directing, writing, acting, and casting then there MUST be racial biased in the Academy since the Academy is made up of those very same directors, writers, actors, and casting that exhibit racial bias.
I dare you to dispute there to be any racial bias in directing, writing, acting, and casting and if you do I will come with even more facts and sources.
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

You are taking things out of context again. The article states:
Lol what are you talking about? It says it right here:
These years are far from the first
whitewashing
in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were
nominated
in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar
nominations
went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st century, a trend that the Academy's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.
Since the article says
whitewashing does not occur due to the Academy
, and since it is the Academy that gives nominations, you cannot use the article to say the Academy gave nominations in 2016 due to racism.
False. Lol it does not say "whitewashing does not occur due to the Academy" it says verbatim:
the whitewashing occurs not behind the
closed doors
of the Academy
It specifically says "behind closed doors". And, i addressed that already when I replied with this:
The whitewashing by the Academy
occurs in the open - not behind closed doors

• since it's no secret that it's 94% white (and 77% male) which isn't an accurate representation of our countries demographics.
  TROLL
  http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

I will answer your last posts here.
Nominations whitewashed. Done.
You are taking things out of context again. The article states:
the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy
Since the article says whitewashing does not occur due to the Academy, and since it is the Academy that gives nominations, you cannot use the article to say the Academy gave nominations in 2016 due to racism.
You ever going to address this?
I told you I don't dispute what the article says, but I do dispute your deceitful attempt to position the article as saying the nominations were made because of racism.

You ever going to address this?
Do you at least agree that there is racial biased for whites over minorities as it pertains to directors, writers, actors, and casting? Yes or No?
Do you concede that Hispanics and Asians are being discriminated against? Yes or No?
Or keep running like a coward?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

The article states:
These years are far from the first whitewashing in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were nominated in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar nominations went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st century, a trend that the Academy's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.
You said:
I do not dispute what the article says.
Nominations whitewashed. Done.
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

So since you agree with the article then whitewashing occurs with nominations as outlined here:
The article doesn't blame whitewashing on the Academy.
You can believe that the academy doesn't whitewash
Don't you believe it? The article you provided states it.
The article implies it here:
The article explicitly states here:
the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy
If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism"
There is this:
the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy

They were making a point about whitewashing and they said it does not occur through the Academy, so I did use it accurately.
So since you agree with the article then whitewashing occurs with nominations as outlined here:
These years are far from the first whitewashing in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were nominated in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar nominations went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st century, a trend that the Academy's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.
You can believe that the academy doesn't whitewash however, you would still have to concede that nominations are whitewashed since you believe everything in the article and they explicitly state that above. Bottom line.
If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" you have failed.
Lol so you refuse to address the following:
The article implies it here:
Could the whiteout be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely.
Random means indiscriminate. So even if it were indiscriminate the prospect of a "whiteout" where no people of color being nominated for two consecutive years is one in 100,000.
The article also states:
Of course the data are not random.
The opposite of indiscriminate is discriminatory.
They are not using said statistics to say the nominations are due to racism.
Lol If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" before you concede that there is systematic and/or institutionalized racism as it pertains to nominations then again you're being disingenuous.
If everyone is looking at an apple yet you keep calling it an orange then that speaks to more to your lack of comprehension and understanding than Spike Lees.
When the article points out that:
The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally smalleven during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000
They are implying that the odds of there not being a racial biased are so low that its highly likely that there is one. By them using the words "hugely unlikely" that means that in their opinion the statistical odds favor that their is racial bias in nominations more than there not being a racial bias.
Are you going to address the above or continue to act like it doesn't exist? Do you have a counter? Yes or No?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

The context you are using it in is not accurate since they were making a point about about casting and drama schools in that sentence.
They were making a point about whitewashing and they said it does not occur through the Academy, so I did use it accurately.
If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" before you concede that there is systematic and/or institutionalized racism as it pertains to nominations then again you're being disingenuous.
If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" you have failed.

Is what it says wrong?
The context you are using it in is not accurate since they were making a point about about casting and drama schools in that sentence. You're whole agreement is about nominations and this is what it says about specifically about NOMINATIONS:
These years are far from the first
whitewashing
in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were
nominated
in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar
nominations
went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st cen2000tury, a trend that the Academy's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.
Why you continue to dance around the above - is beyond me. You brought up that quote - and I immediately addressed it. However, you have yet to do the same.
You also did not address the following in my previous post
:
The article implies it here:
Could the whiteout be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely.
Random means indiscriminate. So even if it were indiscriminate the prospect of a "whiteout" where no people of color being nominated for two consecutive years is one in 100,000.
The article also states:
Of course the data are not random.
The opposite of indiscriminate is discriminatory.
They are not using said statistics to say the nominations are due to racism.
Lol If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" before you concede that there is systematic and/or institutionalized racism as it pertains to nominations then again you're being disingenuous.
If everyone is looking at an apple yet you keep calling it an orange then that speaks to more to your lack of comprehension and understanding than Spike Lees.
When the article points out that:
The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally smalleven during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000
They are implying that the odds of there not being a racial biased are so low that its highly likely that there is one. By them using the words "hugely unlikely" that means that in their opinion the statistical odds favor that their is racial bias in nominations more than there not being a racial bias.
Are you going to address the above or continue to act like it doesn't exist? Do you have a counter? Yes or No?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

you only quoting the middle of a sentence
Is what it says wrong?

This has already been addressed.
the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy
This is not accurate since you failed to properly quote the whole sentence. Please don't go back to misquoting since you were making such progress. Here is the full sentence taken directly from the article:
The numbers indicate that, whereas the film industry most certainly fails to represent Americas diversity, the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy, but in drama schools (shown in the SAG membership) and casting offices.
Yes. I agree with the above statement that the film industry fails to represent America's diversity. The article was specifically referring to the whitewashing of drama schools and castings offices in that statement.
However, here is what the article specifically says about the whitewashing of the nominations - which is the topic at hand:
These years are far from the first whitewashing in Oscars history: no actors from ethnic minorities were nominated in 1995 or 1997, or in an extraordinary streak between 1975 and 1980. Throughout the 20th century, 95% of Oscar nominations went to white film stars. It is an embarrassing anachronism that the prevalence of white Academy electors has been allowed to continue into the 21st century, a trend that the Academy1ebc's (black) president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, has vowed to end.
It states that nominations have been whitewashed starting in the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century.
Lol @ you only quoting the middle of a sentence - and grasping at that straw.
I'm sure why you attempt to ignore the fact the article is not presenting information as proof that the 2016 nominations are because of racism.
You also did not address the following in my previous post
:
The article implies it here:
Could the whiteout be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely.
Random means indiscriminate. So even if it were indiscriminate the prospect of a "whiteout" where no people of color being nominated for two consecutive years is one in 100,000.
The article also states:
Of course the data are not random.
The opposite of indiscriminate is discriminatory.
They are not using said statistics to say the nominations are due to racism.
Lol If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" before you concede that there is systematic and/or institutionalized racism as it pertains to nominations then again you're being disingenuous.
If everyone is looking at an apple yet you keep calling it an orange then that speaks to more to your lack of comprehension and understanding than Spike Lees.
When the article points out that:
The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally smalleven during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000
They are implying that the odds of there not being a racial biased are so low that its highly likely that there is one. By them using the words "hugely unlikely" that means that in their opinion the statistical odds favor that their is racial bias in nominations more than there not being a racial bias.
Are you going to address the above or continue to act like it doesn't exist? Do you have a counter? Yes or No?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

The article implies it here:
The article explicitly states here:
the whitewashing occurs not behind the closed doors of the Academy
I'm not sure why you're not able to comprehend and logically apply the above statistical facts?
I'm sure why you attempt to ignore the fact the article is not presenting information as proof that the 2016 nominations are because of racism.

I do not dispute what the article says.
Good. You're making progress.
I dispute your implication the article is proof the nominations are due to racism.
The article implies it here:
Could the whiteout be 2000a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely.
Random means indiscriminate. So even if it were indiscriminate the prospect of a "whiteout" where no people of color being nominated for two consecutive years is one in 100,000.
The article also states:
Of course the data are not random.
The opposite of indiscriminate is discriminatory.
They are not using said statistics to say the nominations are due to racism.
Lol If you're looking for the article to say verbatim that "The 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism" before you concede that there is systematic and/or institutionalized racism as it pertains to nominations then again you're being disingenuous.
If everyone is looking at an apple yet you keep calling it an orange then that speaks to more to your lack of comprehension and understanding than Spike Lees.
When the article points out that:
The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally smalleven during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000
They are implying that the odds of there not being a racial biased are so low that its highly likely that there is one. By them using the words "hugely unlikely" that means that in their opinion the statistical odds favor that their is racial bias in nominations more than there not being a racial bias.
I'm not sure why you're not able to comprehend and logically apply the above statistical facts?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

Lol - You didn't answer the questions so I'll restate:
I do not dispute what the article says. I dispute your implication the article is proof the nominations are due to racism.
they have given statistics to back up their assumptions of racial bias
They are not using said statistics to say the nominations are due to racism.

They don't say the nominations were due to racial bias.
Lol - You didn't answer the questions so I'll restate:
Could the whiteout be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely.
The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally smalleven during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000.
Do you agree with the above statement? Yes or No?
False. You stated that they were making assumptions. Yet they have given statistics to back up their assumptions of racial bias. So therefore you were wrong that they had no proof to back up their assumptions. Right?
Do you agree with the above statement? Yes or No?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

They believe there is racial biased
They don't say the nominations were due to racial bias.

A conclusion which cannot prove that the decisions people made on nominations were done out of racism, which is what I have been referring to all along.
They believe there is racial biased and gave the following as to why:
Could the whiteout be a statistical glitch? If the data were random, such a glitch would be hugely unlikely.
A 2013 survey of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), an American union for film performers, suggests that 70% of its members are white. If all of the Guilds members were equally likely to receive Oscar nominations, regardless of race, then over a two-year period 28 out of 40 nominations would be of white actors.
The chances of no single person of colour being nominated across two ceremonies would be exceptionally smalleven during a 15-year span, the odds of seeing at least one sequence of back-to-back whiteouts are around one in 100,000.
Do you agree or disagree with the above conclusion?
Since my position is that I don't see proof the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism, are you actually asking me to prove that I don't see proof the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism?
False. You stated that they were making assumptions. Yet they have given statistics to back up their assumptions of racial bias. So therefore you were wrong that they had no proof to back up their assumptions. Right?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

They also cited how and why they came to that conclusion
A conclusion which cannot prove that the decisions people made on nominations were done out of racism, which is what I have been referring to all along.
Since you have nothing to back up your position
Since my position is that I don't see proof the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism, are you actually asking me to prove that I don't see proof the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism?

I'm saying I don't see direct proof the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism. If you say you do see it, the onus is on you to show it. The article doesn't do that.
Lol you need to go to a real Law School and learn what the preponderance of the evidence means. The article that was posted came to the conclusion that there is racial biased as it pertains to nominations. They also cited how and why they came to that conclusion. These are FACTS. If you dispute that - then go ahead I'm sure the people reading this are waiting.
On the other side you claim that anyone who thinks there is racial biased is just assuming.
Definition of the word assumption is as follows:
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof.
An
opinion
is a belief, more or less strongly held.
An
assumption
is a conjecture. You don't know, admit you don't know, and you make an educated guess.
They (The Economist) have brought proof as to why they take their position of nominations having racial biased. Therefore your statement that they are just making an assumption is not accurate. They don't have an assumption - they now have an opinion with a factual point of reference since they have given evidence to back their assumption. YOU on the other hand still have an ASSUMPTION since you have failed to bring anything statistical that turns your assumption into a factual opinion.
Fact: The only thing we have is their article as a point of reference since you don't have a source or facts to counter nor do you have any that backs up your position - that there's no racial biased in nominations.
Since you have nothing to back up your position - even by default people are only left to go with what has been proven with statistical information - which is what 'The Economist' did with their article - and you have failed to do.
Bottom line no matter how you try to spin it. You lose and Spike Lee stays "winning" - since you can't prove your case - clown
Next!
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/

I'm saying I don't see direct proof the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism. If you say you do see it, the onus is on you to show it. The article doesn't do that.