What I really find unfair is having solely Black entertainment, awards, and now even dating sites is ok no one has an issue with it. If there were a White entertainment, award ceremony, and dating site, it would be labeled as racist. I'm not saying we should or need anything like that for the Caucasian people, I'm saying that we need to stop labeling anything in terms of colour period. By saying this is black, white, or whatever we're feeding separation and in turn it's an us/them when it should just be us as a human race.
(downvote if you want, just needed to say it)
When you think about it there already are things that seclude white people. The chances of seeing a minority in media or at award ceremonies are extremely low. Networks like BET, UP or all those Hispanic networks are to represent the people that you hardly ever get to see.
8
deleted
· 8 years ago
The hell are you talking about, we see minorities on the news all the time!
It also depends on script, and an actor if asked to play a part a lot of times say no...it has a lot to do with what content the move is. Giving an award, we need to make sure that the best person wins. The issue shouldn't be the award, it should be more ethnic parts written into scripts that's award worthy. Then I'm certain we'd be seeing a lot of minorities winning.
What I don't understand is that while yes Hollywood does have a problem with race (how big it is is the question, but it does it exist to a certain extent) but even if it didn't have any problems then it would make sense that once in a while there would be only one race that would get nominated simply due to statistics. Not to mention that white people are the largest ethnic population in the US so that would increase their odds further. And that doesn't even include the fact that I doubt most of the people who are angry about this would give a shit if it was all black, Latino, etc. When that has a MUCH lower statistical change of happening, the people who would point that out if it was racist understand what probability and statistical outliers are, and therefore wouldn't unless they actually had grounds to say it.
Once in a while being key here. If it happened once, yeah sure, that can happen, but 2 years in a row? There are around 24 awards each year, and 4 nominees for each of them, but for 2 years in a row there hasn't even a single nominee that isn't caucasian.
That's a 160 filled seats without even a single non-caucasian nominee. That doesn't smell fishy to you?
1) Again with whites having the highest number of people in the U.S.
2) I acknowledged that HollyWood does have a problem (whether small or large its undeniable that they do)
3) Statistics are beautiful thing
4) How many people of those weren't mixed? E.g. 1/8+ of a different race.
@likea
Perhaps you think that Common and John Legend are now caucasian, since they won for Best Original Song in 2015. Lupita won Best Supporting Actress in 2014. Ang Lee, Best Director in 2013 for Life of Pi. Octavia Spencer, 2012 Best Supporting Actress. Mo'nique, 2010 Best Supporting Actress. Jai Ho, 2009 Best Original Song. Need I go on? There are plenty of opportunities for all races to win. It is not our fault if the movie sucks, or if the acting wasn't up to par. Don't get mad at us just because you didn't win an Oscar. Find something else to bitch about, because the race card has been played too many times. You are in charge of how good you are. Not the color of other skins.
@ Novelus.
Firstly, you asume I'm not white? This isn't a matter of us vs them, or you vs me.
Secondly, look at the dates you qouted. Apart from the song, none of them are from the last 2 years.
All I'm saying is that I find it odd that so few non-caucasians have been nominated in these past few years. Have there really only been good acting performances by caucasians? To be honest I really doubt that.
The last paragraph was meant for the ones complaining about the skin color.
Also, I don't care if so few non-Caucasians have not been nominated. I care about the quality of the performances. Not the damn skin color. Why does everyone have to make things about race? Jesus Christ.
@gaming
I study psy. I'm only telling you this because a large part of a psy students curriculum is statistics. I work with statistics almost everyday and understand it quite well.
Take a selection of the best performing students in your highschool, hell, take a 160 of the best performing students in your state, the chances of there not being even a single non-caucasian amongst them is very small.
Now in a comparatively small community like the acting community, the chances of selecting someone non-caucasian should be HIGHER, not lower. Still, at the oscars we see the exact opposite. Why is that??
1Reply
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Thing is though what is worse?
A) a person of colour not being nominated because they didn't do a good enough job in their role
B) a person of colour being nominated because the Academy is made to feel that they need a person of colour to be included for diversity purposes only.
I bet that next year black people will complain that the Academy only included an actor of colour because of the shit that happened this year.
The hash tag for the 2017 Oscars will be
#OscarsSoToken
Seriously? Your argument against giving this issue the consideration it deserves is maybe some white person might not get recognized? I honestly can't figure out which part of this argument is the most flawed, the part where you don't think a person of color could be good enough to genuinely deserve an award, the part where you assume all black people are so petty they'll complain about anything, or the part where you believe the presence of any minority is just "token".
I did notice other races nominated and winning. So, as mentioned, there are more white people...more probability. I was proud to see hispanics, asians, nominated. Not for acting but for creating. Yes it sucks some didn't get a nomination. Did they deserve it idk didnt see any of the movies. Btw i thought the skit where CHris Rock interviewed black people was bad for black people!!! They seem like they have no clue about movies so..not really helping!!
Directors have no obligation to cast a person of the same race as the character. The simple fact is white people can pass for Egyptians, Middle-Eastern people, and Latinos because they're all Caucasoid. That combined with there being a much larger talent pool for white people means it often makes sense to cast white people for roles that aren't white.
Also the Asian roles in that segment were too far in the past for a segment called "How is This Still a Thing?".
White people cannot pass for Egyptians. Sorry not sorry. That's just Hollywood's need to whitewash everything.
It. Does. Not. Ever. Make. Sense. To. Cast. A. White. Person. In. The. Role. Of. A. Character. That. Is. Another. Race. For God's sake. It wouldn't make sense to cast a Mexican person in a Chinese role. So why just slot in a white person wherever you can? It's amazing because, cast a black girl as Annie, and white people lose their minds. Cast a white person in a role meant for a poc and suddenly we're sensitive about it by calling people out on it
deleted
· 7 years ago
If we cast a white guy to play a famous black characters like Shaft or Lando from Star Wars, black people would throw a big hissie fit.
And they would be somewhat justified, because black people aren't Caucasoid.
The bigger issue in that case is that it's silly to drastically change aspects of a pre-established character, regardless of who's cast for the role.
It's discussions like this that are making progress difficult. Burying your head in the sand and insisting an ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE are crying wolf is no way to live life. I'm not saying that you should feel guilty, none of this is about blame, no one is at fault. The problem is multi-pronged and complex, with not enough prestigious parts for minorities, whitewashing roles that should have been played by a PoC, people freaking out over a PoC playing a traditionally white character, and a disproportionate amount of the Academy being white, it is undeniable that there is a problem. If those issues didn't exist, there is no way 2 Oscars in a row would have been all white. No one is doing this maliciously, this is no one's fault, but it IS a problem, and one that simple recognition would go a long way towards helping.
"with not enough prestigious parts for minorities"
How much would be "enough"?
"whitewashing roles that should have been played by a PoC"
Which roles "should" be played by non-whites?
"people freaking out over a PoC playing a traditionally white character"
It's objectively dumb to have a black person play a white character. There's no point to it.
"a disproportionate amount of the Academy being white"
Why is that a "problem" when a disproportionate amount of the industry is white?
Okie-dokie, point by point
-More than are currently available (fucking hell, did you want an exact number?)
-Emma Stone playing a half Asian woman, Jake Gyllenhaal playing the prince of fucking persia, Christian Bale playing Moses, I could too easily go on
-By your logic on this point, you already agree that all the above examples are 'objectively dumb', and I return your previous question with a small alteration. Which roles "should" be played by whites?
-The Academy is meant to represent movie goers, not the population of the industry. The % of white people in America is 63.4, the % of white people in the Academy is 94, hence, disproportionate.
I'm sorry, but the actor and actress you mention MADE those movies. So I don't understand why someone else should have been picked to play those roles just because of race. They did an amazing job and quite frankly I don't think the movies would have been as good without them.
This matters because there are talented Asian American, Middle Eastern, and Egyptian actors that may very well have done just as good a job as their white counterparts that we'll never get to know about. And any plot that hinges on the race of a character (Aloha made it known the female lead was half asian, the prince of Persia was from persia and had a Persian father, brothers, and uncle, and Moses has to be a Hebrew from Egypt for the story to have any meaning) should be played by an actor of that race. Dressing a white person up to look like a person of that race is seriously no different from when white actors used to put on 'black face'.
It should be played by that race? When a talented actor who happens to be white is astounding and perfect for the part? I'm sorry but Prince of Persia is one of my favorite movies and the main reason why is because of Jake Gyllenhaal. He literally made the move. To say a white person should not get a part in a movie, when they're clearly a better and well known actor is racist. Race shouldn't matter, when they're picking someone for a part they need to pick the BEST ACTOR/ACTRESS for the part!
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
This all goes back to forced diversity. Giving someone less qualified a chance over someone who is qualified simply because they're a minority. As a minority I find this insulting as fuck. I work hard for my achievements and if someone ever tried handing me something I didn't earn I would spit in their fucking face
"More than are currently available (fucking hell, did you want an exact number?)"
It's a moot point if you have no end-game. How can it ever be considered solved if you have no victory condition?
"Emma Stone playing a half Asian woman, Jake Gyllenhaal playing the prince of fucking persia, Christian Bale playing Moses, I could too easily go on"
I was looking more for your rational on what roles should be played by non-whites. I'll copy my answer as to why those you've mentioned are fine from a post i made above.
Directors have no obligation to cast a person of the same race as the character. The simple fact is white people can pass for Egyptians, Middle-Eastern people, and Latinos because they're all Caucasoid. That combined with there being a much larger talent pool for white people means it often makes sense to cast white people for roles that aren't white.
They played those parts because they're ACTORS that's what they do. They did it better than anyone else could have! The colour of their skin shouldn't matter, that is racist! Picking the best person for the job shouldn't be saying no because you're white! There would be no difference if they were any other colour. You don't mention any of the amazing African American actors that plays amazing parts, and no one else should have gotten their part either because they are perfect for the role they're playing.
"By your logic on this point, you already agree that all the above examples are 'objectively dumb'"
Wrong, my statement only states specifically that black people playing white people is dumb, though the opposite is also dumb.
"The Academy is meant to represent movie goers, not the population of the industry."
I honestly don't know if this is true or not, can you provide a website that says this?
"And any plot that hinges on the race of a character should be played by an actor of that race."
Why? What if the director wants a AAA star that doesn't exist of that race, or what if the director just doesn't want to spend the time to find a skilled enough actor of that race when there are plenty of easily accessible white actors to cast that can pass reasonably for that race? By what logic should directors be obligated to race match?
My point above, that apparently no one hear read...it has nothing to do with the AWARDS, it has to start with writing parts for the minority of actors, but WRITING AWARD WINNING PARTS! If you didn't get an award winning part in a film you don't deserve an award! You can not just give out awards to someone because of the colour of their skin, and you can't give a part in a movie based on race...you have to find the right actor/actress for the individual part....someone who is the best choice.
4
deleted
· 8 years ago
In the Thor movies, the god who protects the bridge is supposed to be the palest god ever. But Idris Elba auditioned for the role and he OUT ACTED all the other white actors. Take this into consideration before you pull the race card out when a white actor OUT ACTS a minority for a minority role
If they're not obligated to race match then how is it "objectively dumb to have a black person play a white character"? I am thoroughly confused. First you're saying "my statement only states specifically that black people playing white people is dumb, though the opposite is also dumb" but you finish with "By what logic should directors be obligated to race match". By your logic directors should race match. Either that, or your saying a director should race match only if a character has to be black.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
You're desperately grasping for straws bro. Let me restate it for you, if a black actor can play a white role without any up roar then why should there be an up roar for the lather?
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
That's the damn thing, there is always an uproar when a black actor/actress plays a white role. The point is to get to a time and place where it doesn't matter if a black or any other minority plays a role that is traditionally white, much like how it is now, where white people are playing the roles of people who aren't white.
And can we get away from the idea that if a minority actor is "handed" a role in a movie simply because they're the same race as the character that they aren't good at acting?
Ok, from a psychological perspective I've got this to add:
Firstly let me say that discrimination is real, and it happens everyday. This is the 1st thing we learn in social psy in our first year. The 2nd thing we learn is that one of the things perpetuating the discrimination is that people that are discriminated against (whether because of sex, race, religion or age) are "type casted" they are offered certain roles in social settings, certain jobs in bussiness settings and so on. They are often subtly discouraged from behaviours and roles that oppose the stereotype. For example; if I told you you had to do a school assignment with someone who was diagnosed with a mental disorder, how would you react? Would you be afraid? Thread lightly around them in order not to "trigger" anything? Would you expect them to be less intelligent and do more work yourself? If you are like the majority of people, the answer would be "yes" to all counts. Eventhough it is not warrented.
The above example is literally from a study were a group of scientist had 2 perfect healthy students work with eachother on a project, when one was told tbefore hand that he other had a mental disorder the way they treated them chnged significantly.
They same has been found when dealing with women, minorities and older people.
The MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to combat stereotyping and discrimination has scientifically been proven to be consistantly seeing the marginalised group in counter-stereotypical behaviour and roles. Unfortunately that is hard to put into practise because stereotypes continue to keep marginalised groups OUT of those roles.
@7ombie
"By your logic directors should race match. Either that, or your saying a director should race match only if a character has to be black."
Jesus, I've said it twice already, but I'll say it again. White people can pass for any race that's Caucasoid simply by darkening their skin and changing hairstyles. It's stupid for a Negroid person to play a Caucasoid because they can't pass for it, and it's the same the other way round.
@lihea
"scientifically been proven"
Psychology isn't particularly scientific.
The results I have spoken of are, as always, done using empirical methods, well researched and replicated over large number of different groups and have consistently produced the SAME results. In Asia, in North America, in Europe, no matter where these studies are done, they produce the SAME results.
You can say you don't want to believe it, and that's your right, but scientifically these are well established FACTS.
Your entire argument is "well for the last hundred or so years that Hollywood's been around, roles have been for white people. Elizabeth Taylor played cleopatra back then so what's the big deal?" you are basically saying that white people have been given more roles for as long as there've been movies so why change anything now.
I'm sorry, I don't care what race the characters are as long as the best actor /actress is chosen. I want to watch good movies and shows, whatever colour the people are in them really doesn't matter to me. I do know if we start giving out roles only based on skin colour we're doing a disservice to the movie, the people involved, and the public. Same with the awards, the most moving preferences should win, it doesn't matter what your race is.
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
Psychological is not an exact science, so don't treat it as such. You're not even in this debate Guest fuck outta here
I can only assume psychology is not very well understood by you either, Korozco.
You're right on one thing; it isn't an exact science. Then again, neither is Neuro Science, for exemple. But most Neuro scientists I know are psychology majors. Why is that? Because when it comes to empirically studying the human mind, including the biological processes involved, next to the social processes, a psychology masters provides one of the best pre-electives available.
Neuroscientist often use the same experimental designs as "purely" psychologica researchers do. Although in practice they both do close to the same thing and the lines between each science is very unclear. I'm telling you this so you can understand that the lines you're drawing are arbitrary and, most of all, not founded in any understanding of either of these fields.
@lihea
Psychology pretty much reinvents itself every fifty years or so. I have no confidence in it as an empirical science. It might get there one day, but that day is not today.
@guest
"Your entire argument is "well for the last hundred or so years that Hollywood's been around, roles have been for white people. Elizabeth Taylor played cleopatra back then so what's the big deal?""
I didn't say any of that. No part of my argument was anything like "It's been done that way before, why change it?" Don't put words in my mouth.
You don't understand science as a whole if you can say that.
EVERY form of science has "reinvented" itself. That is the POINT of science. To research based on the latest discoveries and research methods, and I can guarantee you there is not a single branch of science exempt from that.
I understand that. I don't think that psychology has progressed to a point that it can be applied with any great amount of reliability. I have no problem with psychological theory itself.
Your statement makes very little sense. Do you understand that psychological theory is derived from psychological experiments, which has been widely regarded by scientists the world over as a bonafide empirical science?
Do you mind explaining why exactly you disagree with incredibly well educated and experienced scientists on this point?
You do understand that there is a difference between CLINICAL psychology and Psychological research?
While the research uses empirical methods to determine psychological processes, the treatment of these findings are still often evidence based. In other words, people are using different theories for treatment. There is quite a bit of debate over which treatment methods are the best. This however does not mean the the recorded phenomena as observed and tested, and re-tested by scientist are not "scientific". The research is absolutely scientific, and the conclusions drawn from them are as well. How people choose to handle and "solve" the issues is another matter completely.
Please learn the difference between clinical psychology and psychological research, like the experiments I've mentioned earlier.
My lack of confidence come entirely from my subjective, anecdotal experience combined with what little I now about psychology from what my brother has told me, including his own opinions and my own inane curiosity. Because of that I don't trust it, for the most part.
I never said that psychology wasn't at all scientific, it is, in fact, a science.
This is YOUR quote:
@lihea
"scientifically been proven"
Psychology isn't particularly scientific.
.
Atleast own what you've said after you've been schooled.
That's a very weak and unconvincing backpaddle, Garlog.
You even put scientifically proven in quotation marks. I can't imagine that anyone actually believes you said the above to mean that psychology IS a fullfledged science. Not at all. Just stop.. It's getting sad.
I'm going to stop because talking to you about this is clearly pointless.
"That's a very weak and unconvincing backpaddle, Garlog."
It wasn't a back-paddle, it was pointing out a thing that already existed. I changed nothing.
"You even put scientifically proven in quotation marks."
Yes, because I was quoting you.
"I can't imagine that anyone actually believes you said the above to mean that psychology IS a fullfledged science. Not at all."
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
"Just stop."
I do what I want.
"It's getting sad."
"talking to you about this is clearly pointless."
You're welcome to your opinion.
The whole point of BET etc is because representation is important to us. It's because acknowledgement and recognition is important to us. But ask for it and it's like "how dare you, person of colour, you're so entitled, you have human rights now, what more do you need"
garlog what exactly is your stance here? Are you against things that exist to represent minorities? What is the point of you refuting everyone who is for it?
Yall should all shut tf up cause yall don't know what yall talking about. BET was made to level the plain fields and seeing that we've been pushed to side again it just shows how much more we need BET. There's still a long way to go and if you don't see it then you are ignorant af. Don't comment on black struggles if you don't understand them or know anything about them. You aint shit
"BET was made to level the plain fields and seeing that we've been pushed to side again it just shows how much more we need BET."
If BET level the playing field, then why is there an issue?
"Don't comment on black struggles if you don't understand them or know anything about them.
Anyone can comment on whatever they want, don't try to police people's opinions.
"You aint shit"
Nice racist ad hominem.
Listen here you stupid person if anything you are the one that's racist cause you actually think you matter and this is sad. Black people can't be racist we are merely prejudice. You should shut up now you getting embarrassed by a guest. Its a pity this isn't black twitter cause apparently you need some schooling
"you are the one that's racist cause you actually think you matter"
"Black people ... are merely prejudice."
And I'm supposedly the stupid person.
"black twitter"
What is that?
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
"Black people can't be racist" XD
There's a lot of things black people CAN'T be, racist isn't one of them lol
"You actually think you matter and this is sad" lmao
Aren't black people the ones with the #BlackLivesMatter
This is the most pathetic Guest I have ever come across XD
And another thing we are good enough black actors/directors have been working hard (eg:Creed) we spicy af we got hot sauce in our bags. Plus the blacker the berry the sweeter the juice. Its just yall's aint shit selective talent recognising comunities. So shut up!
When you think about it there already are things that seclude white people. The chances of seeing a minority in media or at award ceremonies are extremely low. Networks like BET, UP or all those Hispanic networks are to represent the people that you hardly ever get to see.
That's a 160 filled seats without even a single non-caucasian nominee. That doesn't smell fishy to you?
2) I acknowledged that HollyWood does have a problem (whether small or large its undeniable that they do)
3) Statistics are beautiful thing
4) How many people of those weren't mixed? E.g. 1/8+ of a different race.
Perhaps you think that Common and John Legend are now caucasian, since they won for Best Original Song in 2015. Lupita won Best Supporting Actress in 2014. Ang Lee, Best Director in 2013 for Life of Pi. Octavia Spencer, 2012 Best Supporting Actress. Mo'nique, 2010 Best Supporting Actress. Jai Ho, 2009 Best Original Song. Need I go on? There are plenty of opportunities for all races to win. It is not our fault if the movie sucks, or if the acting wasn't up to par. Don't get mad at us just because you didn't win an Oscar. Find something else to bitch about, because the race card has been played too many times. You are in charge of how good you are. Not the color of other skins.
Firstly, you asume I'm not white? This isn't a matter of us vs them, or you vs me.
Secondly, look at the dates you qouted. Apart from the song, none of them are from the last 2 years.
All I'm saying is that I find it odd that so few non-caucasians have been nominated in these past few years. Have there really only been good acting performances by caucasians? To be honest I really doubt that.
Also, I don't care if so few non-Caucasians have not been nominated. I care about the quality of the performances. Not the damn skin color. Why does everyone have to make things about race? Jesus Christ.
I study psy. I'm only telling you this because a large part of a psy students curriculum is statistics. I work with statistics almost everyday and understand it quite well.
Take a selection of the best performing students in your highschool, hell, take a 160 of the best performing students in your state, the chances of there not being even a single non-caucasian amongst them is very small.
Now in a comparatively small community like the acting community, the chances of selecting someone non-caucasian should be HIGHER, not lower. Still, at the oscars we see the exact opposite. Why is that??
A) a person of colour not being nominated because they didn't do a good enough job in their role
B) a person of colour being nominated because the Academy is made to feel that they need a person of colour to be included for diversity purposes only.
I bet that next year black people will complain that the Academy only included an actor of colour because of the shit that happened this year.
The hash tag for the 2017 Oscars will be
#OscarsSoToken
Also the Asian roles in that segment were too far in the past for a segment called "How is This Still a Thing?".
It. Does. Not. Ever. Make. Sense. To. Cast. A. White. Person. In. The. Role. Of. A. Character. That. Is. Another. Race. For God's sake. It wouldn't make sense to cast a Mexican person in a Chinese role. So why just slot in a white person wherever you can? It's amazing because, cast a black girl as Annie, and white people lose their minds. Cast a white person in a role meant for a poc and suddenly we're sensitive about it by calling people out on it
The bigger issue in that case is that it's silly to drastically change aspects of a pre-established character, regardless of who's cast for the role.
How much would be "enough"?
"whitewashing roles that should have been played by a PoC"
Which roles "should" be played by non-whites?
"people freaking out over a PoC playing a traditionally white character"
It's objectively dumb to have a black person play a white character. There's no point to it.
"a disproportionate amount of the Academy being white"
Why is that a "problem" when a disproportionate amount of the industry is white?
-More than are currently available (fucking hell, did you want an exact number?)
-Emma Stone playing a half Asian woman, Jake Gyllenhaal playing the prince of fucking persia, Christian Bale playing Moses, I could too easily go on
-By your logic on this point, you already agree that all the above examples are 'objectively dumb', and I return your previous question with a small alteration. Which roles "should" be played by whites?
-The Academy is meant to represent movie goers, not the population of the industry. The % of white people in America is 63.4, the % of white people in the Academy is 94, hence, disproportionate.
It's a moot point if you have no end-game. How can it ever be considered solved if you have no victory condition?
"Emma Stone playing a half Asian woman, Jake Gyllenhaal playing the prince of fucking persia, Christian Bale playing Moses, I could too easily go on"
I was looking more for your rational on what roles should be played by non-whites. I'll copy my answer as to why those you've mentioned are fine from a post i made above.
Directors have no obligation to cast a person of the same race as the character. The simple fact is white people can pass for Egyptians, Middle-Eastern people, and Latinos because they're all Caucasoid. That combined with there being a much larger talent pool for white people means it often makes sense to cast white people for roles that aren't white.
Wrong, my statement only states specifically that black people playing white people is dumb, though the opposite is also dumb.
"The Academy is meant to represent movie goers, not the population of the industry."
I honestly don't know if this is true or not, can you provide a website that says this?
"And any plot that hinges on the race of a character should be played by an actor of that race."
Why? What if the director wants a AAA star that doesn't exist of that race, or what if the director just doesn't want to spend the time to find a skilled enough actor of that race when there are plenty of easily accessible white actors to cast that can pass reasonably for that race? By what logic should directors be obligated to race match?
And can we get away from the idea that if a minority actor is "handed" a role in a movie simply because they're the same race as the character that they aren't good at acting?
Firstly let me say that discrimination is real, and it happens everyday. This is the 1st thing we learn in social psy in our first year. The 2nd thing we learn is that one of the things perpetuating the discrimination is that people that are discriminated against (whether because of sex, race, religion or age) are "type casted" they are offered certain roles in social settings, certain jobs in bussiness settings and so on. They are often subtly discouraged from behaviours and roles that oppose the stereotype. For example; if I told you you had to do a school assignment with someone who was diagnosed with a mental disorder, how would you react? Would you be afraid? Thread lightly around them in order not to "trigger" anything? Would you expect them to be less intelligent and do more work yourself? If you are like the majority of people, the answer would be "yes" to all counts. Eventhough it is not warrented.
They same has been found when dealing with women, minorities and older people.
The MOST EFFECTIVE WAY to combat stereotyping and discrimination has scientifically been proven to be consistantly seeing the marginalised group in counter-stereotypical behaviour and roles. Unfortunately that is hard to put into practise because stereotypes continue to keep marginalised groups OUT of those roles.
"By your logic directors should race match. Either that, or your saying a director should race match only if a character has to be black."
Jesus, I've said it twice already, but I'll say it again. White people can pass for any race that's Caucasoid simply by darkening their skin and changing hairstyles. It's stupid for a Negroid person to play a Caucasoid because they can't pass for it, and it's the same the other way round.
@lihea
"scientifically been proven"
Psychology isn't particularly scientific.
You can say you don't want to believe it, and that's your right, but scientifically these are well established FACTS.
You're right on one thing; it isn't an exact science. Then again, neither is Neuro Science, for exemple. But most Neuro scientists I know are psychology majors. Why is that? Because when it comes to empirically studying the human mind, including the biological processes involved, next to the social processes, a psychology masters provides one of the best pre-electives available.
Neuroscientist often use the same experimental designs as "purely" psychologica researchers do. Although in practice they both do close to the same thing and the lines between each science is very unclear. I'm telling you this so you can understand that the lines you're drawing are arbitrary and, most of all, not founded in any understanding of either of these fields.
Psychology pretty much reinvents itself every fifty years or so. I have no confidence in it as an empirical science. It might get there one day, but that day is not today.
@guest
"Your entire argument is "well for the last hundred or so years that Hollywood's been around, roles have been for white people. Elizabeth Taylor played cleopatra back then so what's the big deal?""
I didn't say any of that. No part of my argument was anything like "It's been done that way before, why change it?" Don't put words in my mouth.
EVERY form of science has "reinvented" itself. That is the POINT of science. To research based on the latest discoveries and research methods, and I can guarantee you there is not a single branch of science exempt from that.
Do you mind explaining why exactly you disagree with incredibly well educated and experienced scientists on this point?
While the research uses empirical methods to determine psychological processes, the treatment of these findings are still often evidence based. In other words, people are using different theories for treatment. There is quite a bit of debate over which treatment methods are the best. This however does not mean the the recorded phenomena as observed and tested, and re-tested by scientist are not "scientific". The research is absolutely scientific, and the conclusions drawn from them are as well. How people choose to handle and "solve" the issues is another matter completely.
Please learn the difference between clinical psychology and psychological research, like the experiments I've mentioned earlier.
I never said that psychology wasn't at all scientific, it is, in fact, a science.
@lihea
"scientifically been proven"
Psychology isn't particularly scientific.
.
Atleast own what you've said after you've been schooled.
You even put scientifically proven in quotation marks. I can't imagine that anyone actually believes you said the above to mean that psychology IS a fullfledged science. Not at all. Just stop.. It's getting sad.
I'm going to stop because talking to you about this is clearly pointless.
It wasn't a back-paddle, it was pointing out a thing that already existed. I changed nothing.
"You even put scientifically proven in quotation marks."
Yes, because I was quoting you.
"I can't imagine that anyone actually believes you said the above to mean that psychology IS a fullfledged science. Not at all."
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.
"Just stop."
I do what I want.
"It's getting sad."
"talking to you about this is clearly pointless."
You're welcome to your opinion.
This doesn't happen.
If BET level the playing field, then why is there an issue?
"Don't comment on black struggles if you don't understand them or know anything about them.
Anyone can comment on whatever they want, don't try to police people's opinions.
"You aint shit"
Nice racist ad hominem.
"Black people ... are merely prejudice."
And I'm supposedly the stupid person.
"black twitter"
What is that?
There's a lot of things black people CAN'T be, racist isn't one of them lol
"You actually think you matter and this is sad" lmao
Aren't black people the ones with the #BlackLivesMatter
This is the most pathetic Guest I have ever come across XD