4 ms·

If you have a sizable populace willing to garrote you if your award nominations do not include a large enough representation of minority populaces, regardless o

If you have a sizable populace willing to garrote you if your award nominations do not include a large enough representation of minority populaces, regardless of how movies, actors, directors, screenwriters, and anyone else actually performs in any given category (which, I believe, is the main point of an award), the incentive for including an equalized representation across all award categories far outweighs the benefit of awarding based on merit. That is the evidence you asked for, you're welcome. It's not a white / non-white question at all, as you can see.

busterarm 5y ago
Many awards since last year, Oscars included, actually require this kind of representation now to be nominated.
- sol_invictus 5y ago
  Then the equation is even more simple.
lewisflude 5y ago
I wouldn't call that evidence, but I can see how the pressure of political activism could challenge the idea that awards are merit based. But I don't think I've ever seen any actual evidence that the merits of non-white, non-male people are any less than their counterparts. Most responses I see are talking more broadly about "PC culture". I think this could also be a case of a) More non-white, non-male, "othered" people working in media b) More of an audience for that content than ever, enabling people that fit different profiles to make movies
- sol_invictus 5y ago
  Tthe opposite of not wanting selection via cowardice isn't "select more white people", as many seem to misunderstand. It's simply wanting selection based on the criteria at hand. As long as a mob force exists that alters that equation, you'll have at least minor distortion. It could well be that without the mob the award candidates would've been exactly the same, but we won't know.
  - lewisflude 5y ago
    It sort of sucks how opaque awards/speaker nominations/prize selection can be at times. It does create an environment where things can not be 100% "fair" and there's no way of knowing. It would be interesting to see what a truly fair process would look like! I think with something like The Oscars, the fact that the film/TV industry take it seriously is merit enough to pay attention to who wins awards.

busterarm 5y ago

Many awards since last year, Oscars included, actually require this kind of representation now to be nominated.

sol_invictus 5y ago
Then the equation is even more simple.

lewisflude 5y ago

I wouldn't call that evidence, but I can see how the pressure of political activism could challenge the idea that awards are merit based. But I don't think I've ever seen any actual evidence that the merits of non-white, non-male people are any less than their counterparts. Most responses I see are talking more broadly about "PC culture". I think this could also be a case of a) More non-white, non-male, "othered" people working in media b) More of an audience for that content than ever, enabling people that fit different profiles to make movies

sol_invictus 5y ago
Tthe opposite of not wanting selection via cowardice isn't "select more white people", as many seem to misunderstand. It's simply wanting selection based on the criteria at hand. As long as a mob force exists that alters that equation, you'll have at least minor distortion. It could well be that without the mob the award candidates would've been exactly the same, but we won't know.
- lewisflude 5y ago
  It sort of sucks how opaque awards/speaker nominations/prize selection can be at times. It does create an environment where things can not be 100% "fair" and there's no way of knowing. It would be interesting to see what a truly fair process would look like! I think with something like The Oscars, the fact that the film/TV industry take it seriously is merit enough to pay attention to who wins awards.