No One Likes to be Called Racist But Hollywood definitely prefers Whites
-
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 06:08 AM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 08:36 AM)
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. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 09:53 AM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 09:47 PM)
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 -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 10:38 PM)
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/ -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 04, 2016 05:28 AM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(April 04, 2016 11:00 PM)
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. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 05, 2016 12:09 AM)
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/
- since it's no secret that it's 94% white (and 77% male) which isn't an accurate representation of our countries demographics.
-
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 05, 2016 12:38 AM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 10 years ago(April 05, 2016 11:23 PM)
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. -
BruceTJenner — 10 years ago(April 06, 2016 04:46 AM)
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/ -
Bard_Battalion — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 08:37 PM)
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. -
BruceTJenner — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 09:25 PM)
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/