No One Likes to be Called Racist But Hollywood definitely prefers Whites
-
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(March 03, 2016 08:52 PM)
Spike Lee is upset because of a lack of Oscar nominations for black people this year. Diverse casting would not satisfy him. He seems to believe an Oscar ceremony without nominations for black people
must
be due to racism. That's an assumption he can't back up with proof. He does no one any favors by such an inarticulate position. I respect his artistry, but he has become a caricature of himself. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 06, 2016 03:34 PM)
Spike Lee is upset because of a lack of Oscar nominations for black people this year. Diverse casting would not satisfy him. He seems to believe an Oscar ceremony without nominations for black people must be due to racism. That's an assumption he can't back up with proof. He does no one any favors by such an inarticulate position. I respect his artistry, but he has become a caricature of himself.
How do you know diverse casting won't help to solve this very legitimate problem? This also isn't about satisfying Mr. Lee. It's bigger than him. Stop trying to downplay this issue to only a few that are affected. Half the country is non-white ethnic. It affects them ALL.
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 01:37 AM)
How do you know diverse casting won't help to solve this very legitimate problem?
People like Lee will not be satisfied by diverse casting because the assumption that racism is the cause of a lack of "diversity nominations" will remain, which is what is happening. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 07:27 AM)
People like Lee will not be satisfied by diverse casting because the assumption that racism is the cause of a lack of "diversity nominations" will remain, which is what is happening.
Again this is bigger than Spike Lee. Do you have 'Do the Right Thing' on repeat or something? Back away from the TV and listen.
Diversified casting (in Oscar worthy movie roles) PLUS a diversified voting academy will MOST LIKEY lead to diversified nominations.
Right now the majority of Oscar roles are given to white actors and 90% of the academy are white (the majority being male and over 60 years of age).
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(March 07, 2016 08:42 PM)
this is bigger than Spike Lee
I did say "People like Lee", that is, people who assume the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism.
Diversified casting (in Oscar worthy movie roles) PLUS a diversified voting academy will MOST LIKEY lead to diversified nominations.
Any year that doesn't happen people like Lee will cry racism. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 27, 2016 04:31 PM)
I did say "People like Lee", that is, people who assume the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism.
This article backs up what Spike Lee is claiming:
'How racially skewed are the Oscars?'
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/01/film-and-race
Do you have a study and/or facts to counter that backs up your position?
Any year that doesn't happen people like Lee will cry racism.
You're obsessed with Spike Lee. Leave Spike Lee alone - he doesn't want you. Stalker.
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/ -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 28, 2016 02:28 AM)
He is still assuming.
^^^Noticed your reply just got a whole lot smaller blinks
Anyhow, So you don't have a study and/or facts to counter that backs up your position?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 03:29 AM)
Noticed your reply just got a whole lot smaller
It is the simple truth.
So you don't have a study and/or facts to counter that backs up your position?
The article does not prove that he is not making assum1908ptions. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 03:38 AM)
You said:
I did say
"People like Lee",
that is, people who assume the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism.
Those people that you referred to earlier have provided statistics to back up their position.
Where are your facts and/or sources to counter?
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/ -
BruceTJen
5b4
ner — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 06:43 AM)The article does not provide direct proof that the 2016 Oscar nominations are down to racism.
Yeah that's what I thought. So you don't have a study and/or facts to counter that backs up your position? Good to know. I'm guessing since you don't have anything to counter that you agree with the article and their conclusion - which coincidentally backs up Spike Lee's opinion. Either that or.
Everyone can see you're nothing but hot air and delusions
TROLL
http://imdb.com/user/ur6534108/boards/profile/ -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 12:40 AM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 07:57 PM)
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? -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 09:23 PM)
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/ -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(March 31, 2016 04:25 PM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(April 01, 2016 09:02 PM)
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.