• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Dreyfuss on New Oscars Diversity Rules: ‘They Make Me Vomit’

ModernDiogenes said:
Follow the trail of logical thought.

Discriminative practice of the past is to personally decide as an employer, or have some company policy that some percentage closing in on 100% of a particular ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation will be a determining factor of hiring. That is an obvious unethical practice.

So some policing organization, government or industry, decides what? That the answer is to set quotas. That is, unequivocally, the use of ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation as a standard as determination of who gets hired. An unethical practice.

You DO NOT resolve an unethical practice by using a variation of that unethical practice.

That one with an agenda states that water is not wet because it serves that agenda does not make water arid. It’s still wet.

The notion of using discrimination to resolved discrimination is entirely all wet.
Click to expand...
The only requirement is that pictures must have Affirmative Action quotas to be considered for Best Picture. Y'all can still make Birth of a Nation with a Krew of Klansmen. Y'all just won't win the big pot, if I understand correctly. ;)
 
Jezcoe said:
There is no discrimination happening against straight white men because there is not a production where the workforce is 71% straight white dudes.

How does one rail against something that isn’t happening?
Click to expand...

The practice is what the details of the policy dictate the practice to be.

If there is a policy, written or unwritten, that can be determined that says “X%” of any group must be “this amount of that” that is setting “that” as a determinant factor on placement in that group. That is the definition of discrimination.

Again, you are looking at water and because you need it to be not wet calling it arid. Water is wet. Period.
 
jpevans said:
The only requirement is that pictures must have Affirmative Action quotas to be considered for Best Picture. Y'all can still make Birth of a Nation with a Krew of Klansmen. Y'all just won't win the big pot, if I understand correctly. ;)
Click to expand...

Not my point. Which is simply, and it is as simple as it is accurate, you will never successfully resolve an ethics problem with an unethical answer. Not to mention, you’ll also be unethical in the doing if it.

You don’t catch pedophiles by selling kiddie porn.

You don;t arrest drug users by selling drugs.

You don’t end discrimination by being discriminatory.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
The practice is what the details of the policy dictate the practice to be.

If there is a policy, written or unwritten, that can be determined that says “X%” of any group must be “this amount of that” that is setting “that” as a determinant factor on placement in that group. That is the definition of discrimination.

Again, you are looking at water and because you need it to be not wet calling it arid. Water is wet. Period.
Click to expand...
There is also a quota on how many movies can win Best Picture, ONE.
 
TheParser said:
Probably some other famous actors agree with him.

But if they are relatively young, it would be foolish for their careers to say it out loud.

As one commentator said, he may be coming to the end of a distinguished career, so that is why he had the courage to speak out.

As I understand it, no motion picture can be eligible for certain awards if it fails to include various ethnicities and sexualities.
Click to expand...
I believe you are right on your last point and that proves politics are the new art in America. If a film was made about WWII Swedish Nazis some would have to be black, Asian, Hispanic and gay. Sad.
 
uptower said:
Richard who? I'm sure I have an old VCR of him somewhere...just nothing to run it on.
Click to expand...
Who is Charlie Chaplin? Who is Lon Chaney? Who is Elvis Presley?
 
rhinefire said:
I believe you are right on your last point and that proves politics are the new art in America. If a film was made about WWII Swedish Nazis some would have to be black, Asian, Hispanic and gay. Sad.
Click to expand...
I haven't really gone deep into this, but isn't it the behind the camera staff that the quotas are about & then only if you are looking for Academy Awards. Correct me if I got that wrong.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
Very true, but not germane to the my topic, which is ethics.
Click to expand...
The ethics of this are simple: the producers of the Oscars gave themselves some free advertising over already existing industry standards, and a bunch of conservatives set their heads and genitals on fire because Mr Holland cannot wear blackface or something....
 
jpevans said:
I haven't really gone deep into this, but isn't it the behind the camera staff that the quotas are about & then only if you are looking for Academy Awards. Correct me if I got that wrong.
Click to expand...
It's not even quotas, though. A bunch of white guys can make a movie with only white people, get distribution, and make money and no one is going to stop them.

They just can't win a little statue for their people of pallor production.
 
reinaert said:
The ethics of this are simple: the producers of the Oscars gave themselves some free advertising over already existing industry standards, and a bunch of conservatives set their heads and genitals on fire because Mr Holland cannot wear blackface or something....
Click to expand...

That’s not ethics you’re describing, but I’m sure you know that.

Diverting from my point with the above won’t deter me in making it, or make that point less true.

You don’t resolve an unethical situation with an unethical solution. It doesn’t work. One is as wrong for doing so as the unethical folks one is trying to resolve for, and it’s apt to place one on the wring side of history to boot.
 
ModernDiogenes said:
You don’t end discrimination by being discriminatory.
Click to expand...
The logic appears to be that there is some gigantic scale of justice somewhere that got way out of balance due to discrimination against non-white people. The only way (so they reason) to get that scale back into balance is to discriminate against white people but only until the scale is balanced again. They'll let us know when its balanced again.
 
DrewPaul said:
The logic appears to be that there is some gigantic scale of justice somewhere that got way out of balance due to discrimination against non-white people. The only way (so they reason) to get that scale back into balance is to discriminate against white people but only until the scale is balanced again. They'll let us know when its balanced again.
Click to expand...
Hair, genitals and finger tips on fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom