Academy takes historic action to increase diversity- Page 7

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 12:56pm

Well, you know, a psychological test to see how much worth a person actually gives his/her race and how much that person actually makes conclusions about that. 

 

There IS no such test.  And it takes ages to impanel a 12-person jury, who do you propose will administer this non-existent test to potential Oscar voters?  How long do you think it would take?

We know what the problem is.  We know about homophily.  Diversify the voting pool and the results will most likely no longer reflect the very narrow focus of the homogenous old group.  Simple, elegant, demonstrated.  The end.  The end of your nonsense arguments, the end of your intelligence-challenged assertions.  The end.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 1:21pm

The solution lies not in the outward characteristics of the judges themselves but in the level of personal complex they have with race or other minority.

 

Adding people with the same or bigger complexes works as a good counterpart in your opinion? That is your solution? Then the prizes have worth? What on earth are you thinking?

 

You're just moving the problem.

 

I hope you live happily ever after.

 

 

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 1:29pm

You know what the real dreamland is?

 

Ignoring the list of hundreds of reasons why a person could not be among the nominees and thinking "race" can be the only reason.

 

That kind of dreamland is the epitome of not looking at performances, but at race.

 

I am so very glad the Oscars did not listen to this pathetic pressure this year, because they might pull a "Jennifer Hudson debacle" again, a very mediocre/bad actress winning an Oscar because of peer pressure.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 1:29pm

You're injecting words that have no meaning in this discussion.  People with "complexes"?  That's not a thing.

 

Nothing is MY solution.  There are however demonstrated ways to minimize homophily in group decision making, and that is making the decision making group less homogenous.   The only way.  And that is what the Academy is doing.  You can keep fighting that notion with ill-informed blurting as you have been doing in this thread, but you have a fundamental (perhaps willful) lack of understanding of the basic behavioral science that disproves what you assert and that clearly lays out a path of course correction, which the Academy has undertaken.

 

So you should probably just shut up about it now, since you "don't care".

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 1:30pm

I care about talent, not about race.

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 1:34pm

Clearly, since you take such umbrage (look it up) at efforts to curb racial bias in the Oscars voting process.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 3:50pm

Diverse members in the Oscars voting process is racial bias and will stay racial bias.

 

But I'm glad you find racial bias a great thing, as long as everyone does it.

 

I disagree. Solutions lie in a different place. Attitudes of committee members, not outward characteristics. But more importantly, the way films are created, not in the nominations afterwards.

[Taryn]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 4:23pm

Are we still responding to Dave19 like he's actually engaging in a conversation instead of regurgitating the same off-topic argument?

[javero]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 4:28pm

@Namo

 

Judging by his apparent lack of critical analysis skills and penchant for circular reasoning, you must be at least 30 years Dave19's senior.  Just let him wallow in his youthful hubris.  This is not a teachable moment.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 5:11pm

Jennifer Hudson's win was "peer pressure?"  From whom? It was her first film. She had no leverage in the movie industry. She won almost every major award from critics, the public, and the industry that you can win for a film performance.

 

It isn't an award for "how good of an actor" you are, or how versatile you are, or how much you've paid your dues, or if you can also play Shakespeare. It's an award for a single screen performance. And hers was considered the best by just about everyone who had a prize to give out that year.

 

It wasn't because she was black, or new, or young. It was because she knocked it out of the park. I saw it three different times in two different states, and people cheered watching her performance.

 

If you think it was "peer pressure," then I would say you have a bias against her work post-Dreamgirls, which has nothing to with that performance or her multiple wins for it. It has to do with foretelling the future and projecting it back onto the past ... which is odd.

 

"You're only as good as your latest film" has never been more true than in your eyes.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 5:44pm

Forgive Dave19 for his lack of nuance, for he had to watch all 305 Oscars-eligible films this year so he could determine if the nominations were based on merit alone.

Which, of course, they always are. Except when they're not. Like when Jennifer Hudson won, obviously.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 7:48pm

So Findingnamo, "diverse people" still voting only for what they resemble makes a good and objective award show?

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 8:49pm

Child, first off, get over your notion of "objective."  IT DOES NOT EXIST.  In fact, the Oscars don't claim to be anything other than subjective.  

 

Second, a diverse body of voters, not "diverse people," means a better cross section bringing about results that do not reflect the homogenous old white male voters' results.

 

Get it?  Or are you determined to remain a total doofus?  

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 9:06pm

Namo I wish you'd not waste any more time and effort on Dave. I believe that he is determined to never catch on nor admit you or anyone else is right. And I believe he enjoys being this obnoxious. What a waste of your talents.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 9:33pm

To paraphrase Pippin, it takes no time at all!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 12:35am

Having diversity on the nominating committee is all well and fine, but if the movies aren't there, then there is nothing to nominate. 

That should, and is, the only argument. 

[BeadleDeedle]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 1:10am

That's not really an argument. It's just a point. And why should that be the only one? 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 6:59am

Because that is the only point that is actually going on.

 

This "afterwards nominating nonsense of people nominating themselves" is not the point or the problem in the slightest. Nor the solution.

That's like arguing what kind of flowers to put on the graves of the victims of WW2. Let's put all this shallow ego tripping aside and get to the point.

 

"Having diversity on the nominating committee is all well and fine, but if the movies aren't there, then there is nothing to nominate. 

That should, and is, the only argument."

 

Exactly.

 

Go complain to minority people that they should make more babies to take over the world, go write letters to scriptwriters, producers and movie studio's that you like to see more of your minority in films, go protesting on the street, do whatever you feel you need to do, but don't try pulling on something after it's done please.

 

"Being sure that every person in the committee will always discrimitate and always pick their own characteristics, and basically already accusing the new diverse body of voters of racism and discrimination too" is all fine and good, but that will not lead to more opportunities and it will surely not decrease the gap in race or minority difference and overall view and the origin and solution of the problem. At all. If anything, it leads to forced nominees from a very small minority pool. A mandatory gay award or a mandatory black award. Is that the way to go? Long live the separations.

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 9:11am

 

"Being sure that every person in the committee will always discrimitate and always pick their own characteristics, and basically already accusing the new diverse body of voters of racism and discrimination too" NOBODY said that ever.  Putting in quotes doesn't change the fact that you made it all up although it implies it's coming from somebody else.

 

You writing, "In earlier less enlightened times I would have been diagnosed as an idiot and put on an island away from the general population" is one thing.  You having absolutely no reading comprehension is, apparently, the same thing.

[Petralicious]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 9:49am

Do you two gentlemen think you are going to change each others mind?

 

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 9:54am

You know, it's as true here as it is in politics: If you can't make your point without outright fabricating what the other side is saying, you can't make your point (and very probably have no point to make).

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 10:05am

^^^^ Yussss

 

Oh, and the new Sue thinks this is about changing the mind of a person without one!  I'm responding in case there are people lurking here and reading this and who are in 6th grade or so and who might be otherwise swayed by Dave19's syllogistic logic.  (Look that up, Dave).

[Kad]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 10:22am

"Having diversity on the nominating committee is all well and fine, but if the movies aren't there, then there is nothing to nominate."

But the movies ARE there.

And they're not getting nominated.

So...

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 1:41pm

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 1/29/16 at 2:13pm

Haven't had a chance to get lunch yet but Dave19 sure knows how to toss a word salad!