Quote from: cranebump;911194Well, then, if the media has it wrong, can you tell us what it's REALLY like, then? And since you admit it exists, then why isn't it okay for the people affected by it to bring up the issue? What level of dissent are you comfortable with, outside of complete silence?

It's wrong because the number of non-white actors is proportional to the ones getting the accolades.  So the amount of white actors/actresses getting awards is the same PERCENTAGE as the coloured ones.  But instead, people point to the raw numbers because it suits their political agenda.

You want more actors of colour, then maybe more should learn the craft.

There IS racism in Hollywood, but it's, like everything else, more personal than systematic.  You have specific PEOPLE who are, not the entire organization.

There isn't, wasn't and never will be a 'Man' as put forth by a lot of people, to fight.  It's a nice bit of sophistry to gather your little tribe and rail against 'injustice', when in reality the issue is often personal and specific to an individual.


Which is exactly like how Storygames and OSR is, two little factions of tribes warring at each other for bullshit reasons because if they actually sat down and thought about it, they would realize that they have less in common with the guy in the same group as they 'belong' to.

Quote from: Spinachcat;911162Because the movie-going non-white, non-male audience actually doesn't give a shit.

This was my point about Dwayne McDuffie.  He wanted more black and minority characters in superhero comics, so he started his own company that specialized in minority superheroes.  And although it failed economically, some of its characters became second-tier DCU canon.

QuoteWhy does Hollywood make rom-coms? Because women buy full price tickets to rom-coms.

It's actually a bit more sophisticated than that.  Blockbuster action movies actually make more money per film than rom-coms when they don't flop (women watch TV, men watch movies, as a general rule).  But action blockbusters are a higher risk; rom-coms have a better long-term ROI.  It's a safer bet for an investor to put $100M into ten rom-coms than one action film.

QuoteBecause Anne Hathaway sucks.

It's rather ironic to hear Anne Hathaway of all actresses complaining about this, since she had a somewhat famous interview in her early twenties where in response to a question about why she was taking fluffy roles like Ella Enchanted, replied "I've got the rest of my career to play drug addicts and prostitutes. I'm going to take these roles now while I still can."

What makes these discussions and threads to pointless and endless is the insistence that it has to be All or Nothing. Any gender or racial disparity in media is either due to some system implementation of some "-ism" that overrides everything else or there is no systemic implementation, prevalent personal or even any of the "-ism" at all. There's rarely any allowance for degree or nuance. The Other Side has to be completely wrong and Your Side has to be completely right.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911228It's wrong because the number of non-white actors is proportional to the ones getting the accolades.  So the amount of white actors/actresses getting awards is the same PERCENTAGE as the coloured ones.  But instead, people point to the raw numbers because it suits their political agenda.

You want more actors of colour, then maybe more should learn the craft.

There IS racism in Hollywood, but it's, like everything else, more personal than systematic.  You have specific PEOPLE who are, not the entire organization.

The number of non-white actors isn't based on the number of people who learn the craft, but rather who is cast. If you look at the demographics of those who graduate with acting degrees, for example, it is quite different than the demographics of working actors in film and television. cf.

http://datausa.io/profile/cip/500506/#demographics

Note that there are more women than men graduating with acting degrees, and closer to proportional representation in race. However, tons of people who learn the craft instead go into other careers because they can't make a living doing so. Unable to make a living, they work in retail or service, and so forth. One theory might be that women and minorities simply aren't good at acting, despite having gotten degrees, and that's why they're cast less often as leads and speaking parts. Based on my experience, though, I think that they are cast less often due to widespread bias.

I don't think there is any binary between individuals being racist and the organization being racist. If there are enough biased individuals in the organization, then the behavior of the organization as a whole reflects that bias.

Quote from: daniel_ream;911242This was my point about Dwayne McDuffie.  He wanted more black and minority characters in superhero comics, so he started his own company that specialized in minority superheroes.  And although it failed economically, some of its characters became second-tier DCU canon.

Milestone made damn fine comics.  Some of the best superhero stuff ever written.

Quote from: jhkim;911255The number of non-white actors isn't based on the number of people who learn the craft, but rather who is cast. If you look at the demographics of those who graduate with acting degrees, for example, it is quite different than the demographics of working actors in film and television. cf.

http://datausa.io/profile/cip/500506/#demographics

Note that there are more women than men graduating with acting degrees, and closer to proportional representation in race. However, tons of people who learn the craft instead go into other careers because they can't make a living doing so. Unable to make a living, they work in retail or service, and so forth. One theory might be that women and minorities simply aren't good at acting, despite having gotten degrees, and that's why they're cast less often as leads and speaking parts. Based on my experience, though, I think that they are cast less often due to widespread bias.

I don't think there is any binary between individuals being racist and the organization being racist. If there are enough biased individuals in the organization, then the behavior of the organization as a whole reflects that bias.

There's also the effect in the writing, that when the ethnicity of the character is left neutral, you leave it up to production and casting. In that case, it really does come down to their judgment. Of course, the whole diversity issue then becomes about who's available. At the local level, for example, say, with something like a high school theatrical production, then it's about the demographics of the populace.

Tangential to your point, but an FA drgree in drama certainly doesn't ensure someone can act, as we know. Experienced does help, for sure. But when we reach the movies, man, it's about looks and connections as much as it is talent. You post sort of points to that in that it speaks of individuals/organizations. As they go, so goes the casting, I would assume.

Quote from: Nexus;911247What makes these discussions and threads to pointless and endless is the insistence that it has to be All or Nothing. Any gender or racial disparity in media is either due to some system implementation of some "-ism" that overrides everything else or there is no systemic implementation, prevalent personal or even any of the "-ism" at all. There's rarely any allowance for degree or nuance. The Other Side has to be completely wrong and Your Side has to be completely right.

That and the name calling. It's sad because no one really favors censorship, so the point of "you can publish/create want you want to" is something we all agree upon. However, if someone brings up why there may be concerns about such a thing, or why some folks might want it, then they're often called out for "denying reality" or some such stone thrown. Ironic, since people can only speak from the experiences they know, yet others can arbitrarily judge those experiences as irrelevant, even though they themselves have not lived them.

Quote from: Omega;911178Hasbro recently announced Ms White in Cluedo/Clue is being replaced with the new Dr Orchid. An asian.
Tokenism? Diversity? Who knows.

Well, that seems a rather arbitrary move. Mrs. White was the maid character, right?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;911228It's wrong because the number of non-white actors is proportional to the ones getting the accolades.  So the amount of white actors/actresses getting awards is the same PERCENTAGE as the coloured ones.  But instead, people point to the raw numbers because it suits their political agenda. You want more actors of colour, then maybe more should learn the craft.

This is the "you're just not trying hard enough" argument. It's not a particularly good argument, because effort alone is no guarantee of anything (I remember having a great individual basketball game back in the day, busted ass, tried REAL hard -- score 22 of our points -- we lost 94-50). Nevertheless it has its uses. I'll make sure to remember this the next time I hear some pissed-off working-class white complain all the manufacturing jobs are gone. I'll just tell him to get off his ass and get a degree. That should fix it.:-/

QuoteThere isn't, wasn't and never will be a 'Man' as put forth by a lot of people, to fight.  It's a nice bit of sophistry to gather your little tribe and rail against 'injustice', when in reality the issue is often personal and specific to an individual.

When you get enough folks in power to form a system, then the results are, by definition, systemic. Since we can't really trust people to love one another, then it's the system we need to fix. No one wants to tell anyone whom to personally associate with. But we don't want an unfair system. Historically, it has been unfair, particularly to poor people (I'll never understand the anti-union sentiment in parts of the U.S. -- it's one of the mechanisms the masses have at their disposal to invoke change).

QuoteWhich is exactly like how Storygames and OSR is, two little factions of tribes warring at each other for bullshit reasons because if they actually sat down and thought about it, they would realize that they have less in common with the guy in the same group as they 'belong' to.

I wouldn't doubt it. Have to agree these discussions quickly become fruitless. It's not a zero sum game, but we talk about it like it is. You can see it in this thread. Folks say, "Censorship in the creative arts bad." Then we get into non-gaming arguments.

Quote from: cranebump;911269Well, that seems a rather arbitrary move. Mrs. White was the maid character, right?

I think she was the black widow and Claudette was the maid, but I'm going by my memory of the film

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Quick question, where the flying fuck have you been the past 16 years?

In the real world.  Where he flying fuck have you been?

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111This is hardly some obscure movement from tumblr.

No one said it was.  I keep having to point that out to people on the left.  No, this is very much mainstream bullshit.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111*snip more statistical disparity citing*

This doesn't prove anything anything any more than it ever has.  Citing a statistical disparity proves nothing about what caused that disparity.  No amount of citing such disparities has ever or will ever prove anything.  They are cited as proof of discrimination but they do not prove that at all.  The underlying assumption behind the idea that statistical disparities prove discrimination is the assumption that, without discrimination, all people of all sorts from all backgrounds would be interested in all things to the same degree.  The idea that people from all over the world with all sorts of different cultures and backgrounds should all wind up being interested in all the same things to all the same degree is absurd.  It doesn't even pass the smell test.  It has never been observed anywhere in the world at any time.  For example, no military in the world matches the demographics of the wider society in any country even approximately.  Your basic assumption is wrong.  You are making this assumption by the way even if you aren't aware of it.  It's logically required for the assumption that statistical disparity=discrimination.

Quote from: IskandarKebab;911111Nowhere is this best seen than in the bullshit "tokenism" argument.

to·ken·ism
ˈtōkəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: tokenism

    the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.

It's not an argument.  It's just what the word means.

Quote from: yosemitemike;911274noun: tokenism

    the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.

How come some black casting choices, like Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, feel like 'tokenism' to me... but others, like Yaphet Kotto in Alien, don't?
Pretty much any show with a bunch of white kids and ONE black friend? Yep (though NOT The Little Rascals/Our Gang shorts).
Laurence Fishburne in Event Horizon (or anything else, really)? Nope.
Clarence Williams III in Mod Squad? Nope
Sidney Poitier in To Sir With Love (or Blackboard Jungle)? Nope.
Billy Dee Williams in Star Wars 2? Nope.  
John Boyega in Disney Star Wars? Yeah, a little bit...

Am I just aribitrary in my judgement of such things or is there a pattern I'm not seeing?

Quote from: Simlasa;911276How come some black casting choices, like Ernie Hudson in Ghostbusters, feel like 'tokenism' to me... but others, like Yaphet Kotto in Alien, don't?
Pretty much any show with a bunch of white kids and ONE black friend? Yep.
Laurence Fishburne in Event Horizon (or anything else, really)? Nope.
Clarence Williams III in Mod Squad? Nope.
Billy Dee Williams in Star Wars 2? Nope.  
John Boyega in Disney Star Wars? Yeah, a little bit...

Am I just aribitrary in my judgement of such things or is there a pattern I'm not seeing?

This is a good question. I've had similar feelings and felt just as puzzled as to why.

I guess it has something to do with how bolted on the character feels. Ernie Hudson in GB felt... extraneous to some degree. He didn't add anything to the cast, he was completely unlike them (thought a likable character) so it felt he was just there to add a black face. If he'd been white or just not there at all nothing much would have changed.

Lando felt integral to the plot, like he had some point besides being black. He was another type of "roguish scoudrel (that turns out to have a heart of gold) like Han or other pulp archetypes that the Star Wars movie often drew on. I guess?

Laurence Fishburne felt like his character was part of the story and setting not just there to provide "diversity". For some reason...? I guess because he was pretty central to the movie. If he wasn't there it would have made a difference not like he was added to the cast roster as an afterthought.

I haven't seen Mod Squad or the latest Star Wars so I can't really comment except I don't remember seeing allot of virtue signalling about it in Star Wars but I consciously avoided reading to much about to avoid spoilers.

Edit: The current cultural climate may be making everyone more sensitive to the possibility in different ways too.

I see one man's quest for peace ended in a useless debate over pointless diversity that ultimately achieves nothing.  You manager to turn a simple objective into a needless complicated mess over a dying industry.  Well done folks!  Everyone should get a Oscar.

this thread probably should be closed since it isn't about gaming at all at this point, but I am moving it to the media subforum, since that is what it's about now.