|
Post by Vits on Sept 10, 2020 18:53:46 GMT
It is also insulting to the natives of a country to say they have no right to be represented. Funny how you chose the word "native" to refer to white people. In the old days such things were called invasions and cultural oppression. The most common sensical thing is to have media representation for everyone--and that includes the majority. Are you under the impression that straight white men will be fired in order to hire minorities? No, the idea is that interviews will finally choose the more suited candidate, since there are lots of precedents of a straight white man getting the job over someone who deserved it more. That being said, if it comes down to a handful of individuals and the best one happens to be a straight white man, he'll still get the job. If he's not the best, he'll most likely find a job somewhere else. And going back to the film/TV industry: Not every project has open auditions; a lot of filmmakers/studio executives contact people directly and offer them the gig. Sometimes, they choose based on a person's work on a movie/TV series they personally liked and/or was successful. Other times, it happens by nepotism or someone recommending a friend. If straight white men keep this cycle going, it will reduce the chances of a minority getting hired. In fact, up until recently, their mentality was "I need to nail this interview/audition, because if I don't get this job, I probably won't get any job." Can you blame them? It's a really simple thing--if a country is say, 80% Nigerian or 80% Japanese or 80% Anglo-Saxon, should they have media representation--yes or no? Should they be allowed to have ownership and control of media --if so, by what percentage? Merit does not play a role if 80% of the population is of one race, and yet 80% of the media is controlled by a different race or insists on promoting 20% of the population to the other 80%. That's not self-determination. You gave me a headache with all those numbers so I went to get my calculator. Look, here's how it works: If 1 specific movie has literally nothing but straight white men in front and behind the camera, it's not necessarily weird. If a high percentage of movies are like that, it's suspicious. Considering how many minorities live in the U.S. the chances of straight white men always being the best candidates are low. And then chances of a lot of minorities not coming to your office and filling in an application in the first place are extremely low. Therefore, if there's no representation, the reason is most likely that they were unfairly ignored. As for film/TV industries in other countries, it'll all depend on the demography.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 10, 2020 19:20:25 GMT
Funny how you chose the word "native" to refer to white people. Are you under the impression that straight white men will be fired in order to hire minorities? No, the idea is that interviews will finally choose the more suited candidate, since there are lots of precedents of a straight white man getting the job over someone who deserved it more. That being said, if it comes down to a handful of individuals and the best one happens to be a straight white man, he'll still get the job. If he's not the best, he'll most likely find a job somewhere else. And going back to the film/TV industry: Not every project has open auditions; a lot of filmmakers/studio executives contact people directly and offer them the gig. Sometimes, they choose based on a person's work on a movie/TV series they personally liked and/or was successful. Other times, it happens by nepotism or someone recommending a friend. If straight white men keep this cycle going, it will reduce the chances of a minority getting hired. In fact, up until recently, their mentality was "I need to nail this interview/audition, because if I don't get this job, I probably won't get any job." Can you blame them? You gave me a headache with all those numbers so I went to get my calculator. Look, here's how it works: If 1 specific movie has literally nothing but straight white men in front and behind the camera, it's not necessarily weird. If a high percentage of movies are like that, it's suspicious. Considering how many minorities live in the U.S. the chances of straight white men always being the best candidates are low. And then chances of a lot of minorities not coming to your office and filling in an application in the first place are extremely low. Therefore, if there's no representation, the reason is most likely that they were unfairly ignored. As for film/TV industries in other countries, it'll all depend on the demography. Are you saying a white person in a European country cannot be a native? Why not?
Film was invented in Europe. The dramatic structure and norms of theater were also invented in Europe. To suggest Europeans have no right to self-determination in an art form they invented is the Mt Everest of hubris and ingratitude. No one is saying those with merit cannot get hired--there are examples of women and other ethnicities being prominent because of merit right into the 1920s. But the modern aim is to diminish merit hiring--it is driven by ideological loyalty. And there is a massive anti-white element to it now--very obvious.
They don't make Achilles black in a BBC series because he was the best Achilles for the job, they do it because they want to virtue signal. They made a white woman character in a Marvel movie into some mixed-race individual and claimed she gave the best audition--what complete BS--they cannot even be honest. Why would someone who does not fit the ethnicity for the character even be considered for an audition? That is a perfect example of discriminating against whites--you going to tell me that there was no white woman who could have portrayed the character? Is there some collapse of the gene pool we aren't being told about?
If multiculturalism works so well, why have ratings for sports except golf gone down the drain? Because political posturing has nothing to do with merit. Forced diversity ultimately means less choice because Disney and friends want to reduce media content to what can be controlled--they don't care about art or audiences.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 10, 2020 20:03:45 GMT
Are you saying a white person in a European country cannot be a native? I was talking about the U.S. Film was invented in Europe. The dramatic structure and norms of theater were also invented in Europe. It doesn't matter. By that logic, movies wouldn't be made at all outside of Europe. Actually, why Europe as a whole? It was invented in France. To suggest Europeans have no right to self-determination in an art form they invented is the Mt Everest of hubris and ingratitude. No one is taken the rights away from them. On the contrary. There's been little-to-no diversity for a long time because minorities weren't given their rights. Even if that was the case, gratitude would be directed towards the Lumière brothers. Saying that everyone of the same race/nationality has to share what an individual receives (whether it's positive or negative) as if they were an entity is the Mt Everest of racism. there are examples of women and other ethnicities being prominent because of merit right into the 1920s. And that wouldn't have happened without protests and people trying to change the system. But the modern aim is to diminish merit hiring Mmm... Nope. They don't make Achilles black in a BBC series because he was the best Achilles for the job, they do it because they want to virtue signal. They made a white woman character in a Marvel movie into some mixed-race individual and claimed she gave the best audition--what complete BS--they cannot even be honest. Why would someone who does not fit the ethnicity for the character even be considered for an audition? That is a perfect example of discriminating against whites--you going to tell me that there was no white woman who could have portrayed the character? Is there some collapse of the gene pool we aren't being told about? Changing a character's gender, race or sexuality is fine as long as it doesn't affect the plot, the themes or the original character's identity/personality. When this happens, they look for a specific group of candidates and they choose the best one among them... just like they choose the best candidate for straight white male characters. Some scripts are written without specifying certain characteristics, so there can be a wider range of candidates, but that's a rare practice. The problem is that if every character is written to look like the same, how will minorities get a chance to audition in the first place? This is especially true with lead roles. I'm sure that once we reach true diversity, this form of race-bending will decrease, since there won't be an urge to balance things out.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 10, 2020 20:08:49 GMT
I was talking about the U.S. It doesn't matter. By that logic, movies wouldn't be made at all outside of Europe. Actually, why Europe as a whole? It was invented in France. No one is taken the rights away from them. On the contrary. There's been little-to-no diversity for a long time because minorities weren't given their rights. Even if that was the case, gratitude would be directed towards the Lumière brothers. Saying that everyone of the same race/nationality has to share what an individual receives (whether it's positive or negative) as if they were an entity is the Mt Everest of racism. And that wouldn't have happened without protests and people trying to change the system. Mmm... Nope. Changing a character's gender, race or sexuality is fine as long as it doesn't affect the plot, the themes or the original character's identity/personality. When this happens, they look for a specific group of candidates and they choose the best one among them... just like they choose the best candidate for straight white male characters. Some scripts are written without specifying certain characteristics, so there can be a wider range of candidates, but that's a rare practice. The problem is that if every character is written to look like the same, how will minorities get a chance to audition in the first place? This is especially true with lead roles. I'm sure that once we reach true diversity, this form of race-bending will decrease, since there won't be an urge to balance things out. You are just speaking nonsense.
The point remains--everyone should be able to make art for whatever audience they choose--and the USSR-style system we have now discourages that. Actively discourages it since companies are centralized in control and all the gates are manned by those who only believe in ideological virtue signaling. You probably think movies are now the best evah so there is no point in talking about it. You admit that demographics should play a role so at least 80% of UK media should reflect the demographics-and it does not anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 10, 2020 20:27:07 GMT
The point remains--everyone should be able to make art for whatever audience they choose This isn't just about the audience, but also how each artist expresses themselves. Also, most people write/direct stories about "what they know." When they tell minorities "We don't believe someone like you can attract enough viewers, so we can't hire you/finance your project," then they're not getting the proper opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 10, 2020 20:31:27 GMT
This isn't just about the audience, but also how each artist expresses themselves. Also, most people write/direct stories about "what they know." When they tell minorities "We don't believe someone like you can attract enough viewers, so we can't hire you/finance your project," then they're not getting the proper opportunity. Right now Disney is saying they would rather make content for China than Europeans (unlike it's founder). That's fine-as long as some other companies can come along and make content for Europeans again. But the system in place discourages it. Disney's concern for so-called minorities is entirely fake--if they cared about human rights why did they erase Tibet from Dr Strange? Why did they hire a convicted child molester to direct a movie? So their concern for diversity is fake-it is just their insane desire for control over culture (because they see culture as a weapon for propaganda, they don't understand what art is). Walt Disney did understand.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Sept 10, 2020 20:36:55 GMT
Right now Disney is saying they would rather make content for China than Europeans (unlike it's founder). That's fine-as long as some other companies can come along and make content for Europeans again. But the system in place discourages it. Disney's concern for so-called minorities is entirely fake--if they cared about human rights why did they erase Tibet from Dr Strange? Why did they hire a convicted child molester to direct a movie? So their concern for diversity is fake-it is just their insane desire for control over culture (because they see culture as a weapon for propaganda, they don't understand what art is). Walt Disney did understand. Disney has actually been guilty of queer-bating and other forms of untrue diversity, so you shouldn't use it as an example. Actually, why would you? Sure, it's the biggest movie studio, but not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 10, 2020 20:45:06 GMT
Disney has actually been guilty of queer-bating and other forms of untrue diversity, so you shouldn't use it as an example. Actually, why would you? Sure, it's the biggest movie studio, but not the only one. No it is a good example because it is hypocritical to the extreme. They do not give a damn about people or culture only control. Disney had a good public image into the 1980s and it was totally ruined within 10 years thanks to the change in ownership. From aggressive lawyers to copyright extremism, I suppose the one thing that has changed--they do not seem as anal about litigation on copyright like they once were. But I guess they don't care since they feel they are taking over everything anyway.
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Sept 11, 2020 21:36:15 GMT
A good video on the new standards for the I'm-not-racists whose sole understanding of them comes from some Breitbart article:
Tl;Dr: While I'm-not-racists immediately TRUMPeted the "Hollywood is gonna make every movies put more black people in their movies, and that'll make it impossible for movies like 1917 to be eligible!!!" angle, in reality it is actually very easy to meet the new eligibility requirements. Eligibility would require movies to meet at least two of four standards (Standards A-thru-D), and each standard has several criteria by which one can be considered to have met the standard. Basically, the movie only needs to meet at least one criteria from at least two standards to meet the eligibility requirements. Are at least six people on your entire crew from minority groups? Does the distributor or financing company behind the movie have at least two interns from a minority group? Congratulations, you just met Standards B & C, and are eligible for consideration.
|
|