Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

The Oscars is not a "white person award show".
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls500201040/

Not anymore... but it was.

So your claim is now that the Oscar's had no race bar, abut now it is white's only?
Is that your claim?

Several things.

First, the history of the Oscars (which I brought up in relation to the ALMA awards) is their history. Neither of us can change it, so it's not about my "claim". They went 33 years before they had a LatinX acting award winner. Also ten years before they had a black acting award winner then another 24 years before they had a second. So they WERE a white only award, but now they are not longer a white ONLY award, they are a disproportionately white award.

I am actually more comfortable with that than some are with the natural result of this reality which is when the passed over groups decide to do essentially the identical thing, since those groups are routinely criticized whereas the Oscars (until recently) were not.

[Sculptor1]

The Oscars is not a "white person award show".
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls500201040/

Not anymore... but it was.

So your claim is now that the Oscar's had no race bar, abut now it is white's only?
Is that your claim?

Several things.

First, the history of the Oscars (which I brought up in relation to the ALMA awards) is their history. Neither of us can change it, so it's not about my "claim". They went 33 years before they had a LatinX acting award winner. Also ten years before they had a black acting award winner then another 24 years before they had a second. So they WERE a white only award, but now they are not longer a white ONLY award, they are a disproportionately white award.

I am actually more comfortable with that than some are with the natural result of this reality which is when the passed over groups decide to do essentially the identical thing, since those groups are routinely criticized whereas the Oscars (until recently) were not.

So you have been lying, great!
Black people are over represented as a proportion of the population in the Oscars.
Are you happy now?
Or are you still going to furrow this barren ground?

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry to be obtuse. How can "reverse prejudice" be reparation?

Temporary reverse prejudice allows those who have been discriminated against, to 'catch up' with their peers who have not been so mistreated. This is reparation, or compensation, for historical injustice. And if the compensation temporarily exceeds what the mainstream community get, this is only redressing the balance.

N.B. Long-term 'reverse prejudice' is no such thing: it simply becomes prejudice. But a temporary rebalancing can help to undo or repair previous damage.

[Sculptor1]

Sorry to be obtuse. How can "reverse prejudice" be reparation?

Temporary reverse prejudice allows those who have been discriminated against, to 'catch up' with their peers who have not been so mistreated.

Please give an example.

This is reparation, or compensation, for historical injustice. And if the compensation temporarily exceeds what the mainstream community get, this is only redressing the balance.

N.B. Long-term 'reverse prejudice' is no such thing: it simply becomes prejudice. But a temporary rebalancing can help to undo or repair previous damage.

No clear

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry to be obtuse. How can "reverse prejudice" be reparation?

Temporary reverse prejudice allows those who have been discriminated against, to 'catch up' with their peers who have not been so mistreated.

Please give an example.

If women had always been denied the right to drive a car, we might extend that right to them, and then, in partial reparation, we might offer them free tuition, temporarily[/i].

I just made that up, of course, but I think the point is clear?

[Pattern-chaser]

Highlighting corrected.

Sorry to be obtuse. How can "reverse prejudice" be reparation?

Temporary reverse prejudice allows those who have been discriminated against, to 'catch up' with their peers who have not been so mistreated.

Please give an example.

If women had always been denied the right to drive a car, we might extend that right to them, and then, in partial reparation, we might offer them free tuition, temporarily.

I just made that up, of course, but I think the point is clear?

[LuckyR]

Not anymore... but it was.

So your claim is now that the Oscar's had no race bar, abut now it is white's only?
Is that your claim?

Several things.

First, the history of the Oscars (which I brought up in relation to the ALMA awards) is their history. Neither of us can change it, so it's not about my "claim". They went 33 years before they had a LatinX acting award winner. Also ten years before they had a black acting award winner then another 24 years before they had a second. So they WERE a white only award, but now they are not longer a white ONLY award, they are a disproportionately white award.

I am actually more comfortable with that than some are with the natural result of this reality which is when the passed over groups decide to do essentially the identical thing, since those groups are routinely criticized whereas the Oscars (until recently) were not.

So you have been lying, great!
Black people are over represented as a proportion of the population in the Oscars.
Are you happy now?
Or are you still going to furrow this barren ground?

Do you even read the stats, I'll repeat: as 11% of the population the proportional number of Academy awards based on the link you provided (the winners in the 8 key categories) would be 79, in reality there were 34, or less than half of the expected proportion, ie as anyone who knows anything about this somewhat popular subject knows, Blacks are very underrepresented.

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

[Sculptor1]

Sorry to be obtuse. How can "reverse prejudice" be reparation?

Temporary reverse prejudice allows those who have been discriminated against, to 'catch up' with their peers who have not been so mistreated.

Please give an example.

If women had always been denied the right to drive a car, we might extend that right to them, and then, in partial reparation, we might offer them free tuition, temporarily[/i].

I just made that up, of course, but I think the point is clear?

Clear as mud.
You might be talking about positive discrimination.
Is that the case?

[Sculptor1]

So your claim is now that the Oscar's had no race bar, abut now it is white's only?
Is that your claim?

Several things.

First, the history of the Oscars (which I brought up in relation to the ALMA awards) is their history. Neither of us can change it, so it's not about my "claim". They went 33 years before they had a LatinX acting award winner. Also ten years before they had a black acting award winner then another 24 years before they had a second. So they WERE a white only award, but now they are not longer a white ONLY award, they are a disproportionately white award.

I am actually more comfortable with that than some are with the natural result of this reality which is when the passed over groups decide to do essentially the identical thing, since those groups are routinely criticized whereas the Oscars (until recently) were not.

So you have been lying, great!
Black people are over represented as a proportion of the population in the Oscars.
Are you happy now?
Or are you still going to furrow this barren ground?

Do you even read the stats, I'll repeat: as 11% of the population the proportional number of Academy awards based on the link you provided (the winners in the 8 key categories) would be 79, in reality there were 34, or less than half of the expected proportion, ie as anyone who knows anything about this somewhat popular subject knows, Blacks are very underrepresented.

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

Tutut. You are double accounting.
When you award "Best Film", or "Best Foreign film", you cannot assign that to a race. Why you are doing is assigning "best costume make-up", OR "BEST ANIMATION" as a non black race.
This is absurd.

[LuckyR]

Several things.

First, the history of the Oscars (which I brought up in relation to the ALMA awards) is their history. Neither of us can change it, so it's not about my "claim". They went 33 years before they had a LatinX acting award winner. Also ten years before they had a black acting award winner then another 24 years before they had a second. So they WERE a white only award, but now they are not longer a white ONLY award, they are a disproportionately white award.

I am actually more comfortable with that than some are with the natural result of this reality which is when the passed over groups decide to do essentially the identical thing, since those groups are routinely criticized whereas the Oscars (until recently) were not.

So you have been lying, great!
Black people are over represented as a proportion of the population in the Oscars.
Are you happy now?
Or are you still going to furrow this barren ground?

Do you even read the stats, I'll repeat: as 11% of the population the proportional number of Academy awards based on the link you provided (the winners in the 8 key categories) would be 79, in reality there were 34, or less than half of the expected proportion, ie as anyone who knows anything about this somewhat popular subject knows, Blacks are very underrepresented.

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

Tutut. You are double accounting.
When you award "Best Film", or "Best Foreign film", you cannot assign that to a race. Why you are doing is assigning "best costume make-up", OR "BEST ANIMATION" as a non black race.
This is absurd.

I'll take your not addressing my points as silent acknowledgement that you can't.

[Sculptor1]

So you have been lying, great!
Black people are over represented as a proportion of the population in the Oscars.
Are you happy now?
Or are you still going to furrow this barren ground?

Do you even read the stats, I'll repeat: as 11% of the population the proportional number of Academy awards based on the link you provided (the winners in the 8 key categories) would be 79, in reality there were 34, or less than half of the expected proportion, ie as anyone who knows anything about this somewhat popular subject knows, Blacks are very underrepresented.

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

Tutut. You are double accounting.
When you award "Best Film", or "Best Foreign film", you cannot assign that to a race. Why you are doing is assigning "best costume make-up", OR "BEST ANIMATION" as a non black race.
This is absurd.

I'll take your not addressing my points as silent acknowledgement that you can't.

You have not made a point, because our evidence if faulty.
Go back to the drawing board.

[Sculptor1]

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

The Oscars are not responsible for the lack of opportunities for black people in society. Nor do they control the number of black people making films, acting in films, or participating in films.
2016 was a year where there were few black people hitting the high spots and so the number of nominations for black people reflected that. That does not make the Oscars racist.
Yet the moment a good black director comes along such as Steve Mc Queen they are honoured.
But you cannot expect them to summon up great actors and great roles to fulfill your personal idea of a quota.
What are they supposed to do?

[LuckyR]

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

The Oscars are not responsible for the lack of opportunities for black people in society. Nor do they control the number of black people making films, acting in films, or participating in films.
2016 was a year where there were few black people hitting the high spots and so the number of nominations for black people reflected that. That does not make the Oscars racist.
Yet the moment a good black director comes along such as Steve Mc Queen they are honoured.
But you cannot expect them to summon up great actors and great roles to fulfill your personal idea of a quota.
What are they supposed to do?

Greatness is subjective. Let's be honest, award shows at least partially boil down to a popularity contest. As I said previously I've been around the block enough that I understand that it is unrealistic to suppose that a group that was 94% white (and 77% male, BTW) in 2012, is going to beat the bushes to find Black actor's performances to nominate then vote them the winner. So I'm not calling the results of the Academy's voting unusual or suprising. But it is an error to call the Oscar distribution proportional when viewed along racial lines. Let's face it, if the Academy was 94% made up of my family, I'd win an Oscar.

You say the Academy Awards were never a white award show. What do you label an award where the overwhelming majority of the voters and winners are white? (As they were until very recently).

Since I didn't bring up the Oscars in isolation, rather in contrast to the ALMA awards, perhaps folks have a problem with the world Latin in the name of the ALMAs. So if they instead had a generic name and just happened to have an overwhelming majority of Latino membership who just happened to see fit to nominate all Latino performances then that would pass muster with their critics.

[Sculptor1]

As to lying, I never stated that there has never been a Black winner, I quoted a casual conversation (with quotation marks) that I had with an acquaintance, to point out the as yet unrefuted observation that when minority groups perform similar actions to what the majority did for decades or centuries, armchair experts criticize the actions of the minority groups, yet give the historic actions of the majority a pass.

The Oscars are not responsible for the lack of opportunities for black people in society. Nor do they control the number of black people making films, acting in films, or participating in films.
2016 was a year where there were few black people hitting the high spots and so the number of nominations for black people reflected that. That does not make the Oscars racist.
Yet the moment a good black director comes along such as Steve Mc Queen they are honoured.
But you cannot expect them to summon up great actors and great roles to fulfill your personal idea of a quota.
What are they supposed to do?

Greatness is subjective. Let's be honest, award shows at least partially boil down to a popularity contest. As I said previously I've been around the block enough that I understand that it is unrealistic to suppose that a group that was 94% white (and 77% male, BTW) in 2012, is going to beat the bushes to find Black actor's performances to nominate then vote them the winner. So I'm not calling the results of the Academy's voting unusual or suprising. But it is an error to call the Oscar distribution proportional when viewed along racial lines. Let's face it, if the Academy was 94% made up of my family, I'd win an Oscar.

You say the Academy Awards were never a white award show. What do you label an award where the overwhelming majority of the voters and winners are white? (As they were until very recently).

You seem blind as to why. But never mind. Bigotry goes both ways.

Since I didn't bring up the Oscars in isolation, rather in contrast to the ALMA awards, perhaps folks have a problem with the world Latin in the name of the ALMAs. So if they instead had a generic name and just happened to have an overwhelming majority of Latino membership who just happened to see fit to nominate all Latino performances then that would pass muster with their critics.

In contrast to the Oscars the ALMA award is 100% racist.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry to be obtuse. How can "reverse prejudice" be reparation?

Temporary reverse prejudice allows those who have been discriminated against, to 'catch up' with their peers who have not been so mistreated.

Please give an example.

If women had always been denied the right to drive a car, we might extend that right to them, and then, in partial reparation, we might offer them free tuition, temporarily.

I just made that up, of course, but I think the point is clear?

P.S. Hindsight suggests that competitive driving might've been a better choice of example?

Clear as mud.
You might be talking about positive discrimination.
Is that the case?

Aren't 'reverse' discrimination and 'positive' discrimination the same thing?