-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Academy's New Voting Rules Raise Questions, Concerns and Anger Among Members
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
- Status
Kickstarter just found its new racket: documentaries about older actors.
Suck it, Double Fine!
A Link to the Past
Banned
Haha, I was just gonna say, there's no way now that they're not going to exploit loopholes in the system.
excelsiorlef
Member
Thanks for your hot take Ice Cube
Angelus Errare
Banned
I love you.
Well it'd help if the textbook you're pulling this definition from was actually right.
Angelus Errare
Banned
dbl post, my bad! D:
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Jon Schnepp is about to be SWIMMING in work.
talisayNon
Member
Coogler should have been nominated. fuck these racist assholes. bye bitches
Amibguous Cad
Member
Fine.
I really don't see why retaining other privileges of membership in the academy is relevant. Consider a company that wanted to diminish the influence of Jains (to take an uncontroversial group since this audience appears completely unable to separate object-level preferences from meta-level principles) on their votes to determine company strategy and retain CEOs or whatnot. Jains frequently wear turbans, though not all do, with other groups using them infrequently or not at all, so they pass a measure saying anyone who wears turbans on more than half the days of the year loses their voting rights. Jains still retain the ability to buy and sell shares and make money off of the stock. Still religious discrimination, no?
Perhaps there really isn't anti-elderly bias going on here. Maybe they really do want to limit the ability of people who are out of touch with the modern film industry to not have undue influence over their awards. But if this were the case, how is this supposed to help solve discrimination? The academy's messaging only makes sense if you buy that 1.) old people are racist 2.) This measure prevents old people from having as much influence as they did in the past and 3.) therefore the academy awards will be less racist now.
To sum up, in general under American jurisprudence a measure falls afoul of anti-discrimination statutes when:
1.) The measure has a disproportionate impact on a protected group.
2.) The measure is adopted with the goal of disproportionately impacting that protected group.
To prove the case:
1.) Age is a protected group, and I think most people of good faith would in any case agree that it shouldn't be a valid basis of discrimination. I don't think anyone can deny that a measure that targets retired people has a disproportionate impact on the elderly (or the disabled, for that matter).
2.) Is more debateable. Though again, without the old people are racist -> this gets rid of old people -> therefore our awards will be less racist the messaging of the academy makes no sense.
Or, DryEyeRelief did some of my work for me, and collected much of the ageism expressed in this thread here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=193134342&postcount=133
And honestly if you don't think similar thoughts are going through the heads of the people who adopted the measure I'm not sure you're engaging in this argument in good faith.
charlequin
Banned
Yep. I like how this particular approach just in general should improve the in-touchness of the Academy since it'll mean far more voters will have recently worked in the industry.
As written these rules are on net relatively friendly to retirees in the true sense of the word, since a 70 year old with a 21+ year career who then retired would keep their vote, while a 40 year old who washed out after one credit in their 20s would not.
This is a really, really stupid argument. Is this really the way you want to go with this?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Speaking of not entering arguments in good faith, how is the answer to the bolded question not self-evident, though?
None of your arguments seem to even be attempting to kneecap the idea that these measures will increase inclusivity and diversity within the ranks of the Academy, or improve the percieved relevancy of the Academy in regards to what people are making and watching. Your argument is simply that old people are now being discriminated against instead of women and minorities.
So I'm left to believe you already honestly recognize the benefits this move would allow, you're just more concerned about the hypothetical lack of benefits being afforded the more elderly members due to the change.
It seems to me the answer is so self-evident you're not even trying to address it.
Amibguous Cad
Member
I laid my cards on the table in the very first post I made in this thread.
So no, I don't doubt that this measure would make the academy awards less racist. I'm just not comfortable with throwing one discriminated against group under the bus to help another. I thought it was wrong when when the racism of the gay community was laid bare in some of the ugly recriminations after we lost Prop 8, and I think so now.
Its exactly what everyone said was going on in the background, yet these fools are too stupid to realize they are justifying the need for diversity when they all think its some old ship.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Then you should have folded when you saw what a shit hand you had.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Dat 2011 2012 large 10% non-white invitee's right before that invite spike
A specific age isn't the target. So both your 1 and 2 stated requirements for discrimination under the law doesn't hold up.
Intent is also important and it is why your second attempt at an analogy fails as well. Though this time maybe not as offensively as last time.
You are conflating a rule in a company designed specifically to discriminate against a specific minority with zero functional purpose with regards to executing the duties or requirements of the job to a change in rules that aims to diversify and is built around an outcome that is not discriminatory and who's measures can not be reasonably concluded to actively be targeting any protected group. Which is completely based around functionality and competence to perform the job. And well within the legal boundries to do so. And as Charlequin pointed out, these measures are actually just as likely to hurt young people as they are older ones.
Not sure why you wanted to take this argument of yours the legal route anyways, as that is going to be even harder for you to prove.
Well, yes, to the people who don't work in the industry. But if you do work in the industry, getting Oscar recognition is a huge deal to your career.
Gotdatmoney
Member
People want the academy to be less old white men because with physical evidence they have objectively shown to fail include a diverse group of actors and opinions into their selections. The point of limiting membership to people who are active in the community for 30 years is so they can have a better more informed decision on both the state of movies and the cultural and social norms of the time we live in. And 100% yes, being old makes you far more likely to hold onto racist biases, let's not play dumb here. Some of these people were old enough to be adults during Civil Rights. Why on earth are we going to pretend that an average age of 63 isn't going to be more likely to hold unfair racial and sexist biases than an average age of 33? You wanna really play that angle? This is an actual quote from one of the members
But it's an unreasonable conclusion to draw based off history amiright? If you refuse to take into consideration why the changes are being put into effect you're being ignorant.
The changes being introduced do not target you if you are active in the film industry period. Is it going to kick out older members? Yes. Should they have been there in the first place? No they should not. The rule is going to affect you if you were a 25 year old dude who stayed in acting 10 years than quit as well. This is purely a merit based distinction. And with the members that they relieve, they can then fill those spots with an active desire to bring in younger, non white members who can bring forth a new set of opinions and ideas. Is that not blatantly obvious?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Yeah, I'm sure he voted for it. Still don't understand his salt.
Father_Brain
Banned
There's a particular irony there, in that Tab Hunter is a gay man who had to stay in the closet for many years, including the entirety of his acting career, due to pervasive Hollywood homophobia. One would hope he'd be more cognizant of what it feels like to be marginalized in Hollywood and thus sympathetic to the backlash, but of course, that's not how it always works.
He's gay and Jewish - two things Hitler wasn't a big fan of.
Admiral Woofington
Member
It's sad but you would be surprised the level of cognitive dissonance people can operate under.
I had the displeasure of working with someone for some time that it slowly became clear he was an unrepentant racist towards black people. He was also gay.
One day a black person made a rather offensive homophobic generalization in the course of dealing with him and afterwards, without even the slightest bit of irony or self awareness, simultaneously decried the homophobia still ingrained in American culture and then said very callously that it doesn't surprise him because all straight black people are homophobic.
Amibguous Cad
Member
Droll. Are you then, in favor of increasing discrimination against the elderly if it reduces discrimination against racial minorities? I'm trying to interpret charitably but there's no other way I can think to construe "I don't want to fight racism with ageism" as a "shit hand"
It's not really surprising though. Gay white men aren't always allies to non-whites, the yelling of "nigger" during the Prop 8 protests is proof of that.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This isn't discrimination against the elderly, as has been explained to you multiple times, so the question isn't even relevant.
This stuck out to me:
Why should you watch films if you have no say in them? Because you love film for film's sake. You're a member of an Academy whose duty it is to recognize your film industry peers. At a bare minimum, you should have an interest in film without some kind of incentive. This is really a sickening attitude.
I don't think your age is important in regards to membership, though. More important is passion for and contributions to the film industry.
Why should you watch films if you have no say in them? Because you love film for film's sake. You're a member of an Academy whose duty it is to recognize your film industry peers. At a bare minimum, you should have an interest in film without some kind of incentive. This is really a sickening attitude.
I don't think your age is important in regards to membership, though. More important is passion for and contributions to the film industry.
Again, assertions require qualification. So far you are 0-2.
The shittiness of the hand should be pretty self evident at this point with how poorly your gymnastics routine has landed in trying to back up that assertion through poorly thought out analogies and by trying to stretch the definition of ageism to such a point that it basically becomes meaningless.
Isn't it ageism only if it affects everyone above a certain age? Not every actor 80 and older is being impacted at all by these rule changes, even if they haven't even been nominated before or during their membership. The only thing that's being taken away from those that won't qualify is the voting privilege, and even then, they also gain free membership for the rest of their life, which is one less expense they have to worry about.
And as it's been pointed out, this goes for anyone of any age. An actor that gets in at 20 that chooses to go dark after that is going to get kicked out at 30. Where's the ageism in that? Logan's Run hasn't happened yet!
Father_Brain
Banned
Oh, trust me, I'm not surprised. I'm no stranger to gay men, especially affluent white gay men, having less than progressive views on issues regarding minorities other than themselves.
I just wish it weren't so.
IamMattFox
Member
Is there even any benefit to being a voting member (compensation and the like) or is it all a prestige/status thing?
Amibguous Cad
Member
Perhaps a wikipedia article will suffice rather than my own words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
Or, you know, the poll tax analogy. The purpose of which would be abundantly obvious to the posters in this thread if they understood that the point of analogies in honest debate isnt to attach positive or negative affect to something but to explore logical similarities.
Angelus Errare
Banned
The entire prop 8 thing still gets me heated.
EatinOlives
Member
For some jobs you need to carry several tens of pounds at a time. Sometimes you have to travel very frequently. Sometimes you have to attend long-ass conferences without breaks. Plenty of requirements in plenty of careers also tend to filter out the elderly who are less than able-bodied. It does not make these requirements age-ism. Age-ism are rules specifically designed to discriminate against older people who are perfectly capable of performing their job.
The only argument here seems to be that, because these new requirements also have the side effect of excluding some of the elderly Academy members who haven't worked in 10 years, didn't get nominated for an Oscar, and weren't active for 30 years prior, that therefore it MUST be age-ism. Except for the fact that flash-in-the-pan actors who don't work for 10 years are just as likely to fail these requirements, and except for the fact that the new rules are extremely lenient and can be easily met regardless of age, and except for the fact that you're not kicked out of the Academy and just moved to an "emeritus" status, and except for the fact that the 30-years-then-lifetime-member stipulation is a built-in seniority rule.
Um, so what was that about age-ism?
You really, really, genuinely believe it's a clever analogy, don't you? You just cannot help yourself.
From your own wikipedia link:
The onus is on you to prove that it's having a DISPROPORTIONATE adverse impact on the elderly. You seem to be content with just proving that it has AN impact on the elderly while conveniently ignoring all the other instances in which the non-elderly can be impacted.
The only argument here seems to be that, because these new requirements also have the side effect of excluding some of the elderly Academy members who haven't worked in 10 years, didn't get nominated for an Oscar, and weren't active for 30 years prior, that therefore it MUST be age-ism. Except for the fact that flash-in-the-pan actors who don't work for 10 years are just as likely to fail these requirements, and except for the fact that the new rules are extremely lenient and can be easily met regardless of age, and except for the fact that you're not kicked out of the Academy and just moved to an "emeritus" status, and except for the fact that the 30-years-then-lifetime-member stipulation is a built-in seniority rule.
Um, so what was that about age-ism?
You really, really, genuinely believe it's a clever analogy, don't you? You just cannot help yourself.
From your own wikipedia link:
The onus is on you to prove that it's having a DISPROPORTIONATE adverse impact on the elderly. You seem to be content with just proving that it has AN impact on the elderly while conveniently ignoring all the other instances in which the non-elderly can be impacted.
Your analogies aren't logically similar.
I love you continue to ignore everyone that has teared down your awful analogies and arguments and then keep acting like they are solid and proven in subsequent posts.
Once again though, you are abusing terms that don't actually qualify in the situations your using them in. This is not a case of Disparate Impact. A mod no less already pointed this out to you.
Turin Turambar
Member
The funny thing is that the limit is still pretty generous. Freaking 30 years since the last work!
I doubt that will change anytime soon. They are white before they're anything else.
You and me both. I absolutely despise Dan Savage for pushing that narrative and then pretending like he did nothing wrong when the real numbers came out.
Black people are always the scapegoat.
excelsiorlef
Member
This...is...not...happening.
Elderly discrimination would be kicking them all out atva certain age.
They've instituted instead a requirement of actually being still sort of active in the industry. This is to ensure the nomination and awards process better reflects the world of today.
I think the issue really doesn't apply to Academy membership since you don't need to be a member of the Academy to work in the industry, and I'd wager that an overwhelming portion of the domestic film industry over the past 88 years hasn't and likely never would have been or will be members.
Think of it like this: the guild of profession is the college, while the Academy is the extracurricular club down the hall. You need the college for a higher education, but you don't need the club to be in college.
Great post and encapsutiom for the lunacy of this ageist attack.
He's broadening the term(knowingly or unknowingly) to such a point it's definition would become meaningless.
If something can be construed in his mind to have a detrimental effect to older people, even if it is completely in line with completely rational and objective requirements to be employed or qualify for a job or duty, it becomes prejudice in his world and thus it is fair to analogise it to true objective and concerted cases of institutional prejudice like poll taxes or banning religious headwear for no functional reason.
It's an absurd logical contortion.
By his logic boot camp requirements in the military would be prejudice against the old, the fat and the dumb. Making any changes that make aspects of boot camp more physical or mentally grueling prejudice policy by his logic.
EatinOlives
Member
Agreed. It doesn't pass muster at the best basic levels.
These specific rules are written as requirements to be active within the industry to take part in the most active aspect of the Academy (as in, voting on the movies that released in the last year). If someone is this inactive in the industry who is already in the Academy, there's no real reason why they should be there. And look at some of the responses from Academy members, shouting dogwhistles like "PC culture!", "but it's merit based!!" and "I totally voted for black people before!!". Regardless of age they need to be kicked out. But every time we explain the actual intent Cad comes back with "a-ha! You're just parroting the veil draped over this clearly age-ist rule much like racists parrot illiteracy tests were about literacy! I figured you out!!"
Bobby Roberts
Banned
See! Here's an old who's all for this exciting new frontier in industry back-patting!
BotoxAgent
Member
Omg, and we expect his outdated opinion to influence the modern film industry? Fuq lol
TumblingHippo
Member
The whole "but it's ageism!" thing feels like a thinly veiled way to cling to the status quo, without saying you don't like change. It seemed pretty clear that it's about active participation, and singling out people who hold outdated views.
Plus, ageist policies wouldn't work, anyways. While a majority of older people may cling to views that are homophobic, sexist, and racist, the reality is that a lot of younger people are being brought up with those same views. If anything, the goal should be to publicly target and shame those views and the academy members who support them.
Plus, ageist policies wouldn't work, anyways. While a majority of older people may cling to views that are homophobic, sexist, and racist, the reality is that a lot of younger people are being brought up with those same views. If anything, the goal should be to publicly target and shame those views and the academy members who support them.
MHWilliams
Member
Hey, if you're really all about ageism in Hollywood, you should know that it is a thing and it tends to effect women far more than men.
Helen Mirren
That situation mentioned above?
Anne Hathaway
Dakota Johnson
That's a real problem.
The argument some are trying to bring up here? Nah.
Helen Mirren
That situation mentioned above?
Anne Hathaway
Dakota Johnson
That's a real problem.
The argument some are trying to bring up here? Nah.
Do you just have binders full of research on shit just in case someone happens to be talking about a subject?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked