Yeah, if he participated in any way in that documentary (producing/advising/appearing) then he's golden. He gets to keep his vote.
Kickstarter just found its new racket: documentaries about older actors.
Suck it, Double Fine!
Oscars = Most overrated award ever.
Old white men are the most oppressed group in all of society.
It's true. Did you know that they are the group that is most likely die of a hypothetical heart attack during a traffic jam caused by a protest?
Pardon me for using textbook antidiscrimination law to talk about discrimination.
Kickstarter just found its new racket: documentaries about older actors!
You're not gonna get the pardon, but you can move past the mistake to address the direct response I gave you that explains more clearly how this isn't age discrimination.
Then you probably should have figured a way to make your point without doing that because jeeeezus.
Academy members who do not meet the Awards voting criteria won't get their status revoked as Academy members. They will still belong to the Academy, they will still attend those events, get those gift bags, and see those films without having to pay for a ticket and enter a theater. Their influence will still be noted and felt. They'll likely turn into lobbyists, if you want to make a modern-day political comparison.
But the Academy has decided that the people who get to vote on who gets their awards have to have contributed in some fashion to the industry proper within the last 10 years, and that's IF they haven't actually secured a nomination, at which point they're lifetime voters no matter what. That's not a particularly stringent restriction at all.
This isn't age-based disenfranchisement. It's more like telling people who don't pay rent that they don't get a say in how the house gets decorated. Nobody's getting kicked out of the house. They're just not allowed to help hang the photos on the wall.
Racial issues aside there's always been a critique on the Academy and their being out of touch whenever awards season comes around, the race issue just helps illustrate the point.
Do it in such a way that you're not discriminating against retired people, then.
Yeah, and some blacks could pass literacy tests and pay a poll tax, and there's nothing stopping them from getting voting ID today.
If there a list of people in the Academy somewhere, or at least younger ones?
I imagine Tab Hunter is in because of Damn Yankees, one of the few noteworthy things he was in, so it'd be interesting to see if other actors of similar careers that are not white and see if they are members.
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? .
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.
I'm not a fan of fighting racism with ageism.
Goddamn, these tears just taste so refreshing. The salt really adds some much needed flavor.
I laid my cards on the table in the very first post I made in this thread.
Dat 2011 2012 large 10% non-white invitee's right before that invite spike
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.
Oscars = Most overrated award ever.
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?
Tab Hunter, 84, a member of the actors branch, concurred, calling the announcement "bullshit." He elaborated, "Obviously, it's a thinly-veiled ploy to kick out older white contributors — the backbone of the industry — to make way for younger, 'politically-correct' voters. The Academy should not cave in to media hype and change the rules without talking to or getting votes from all members first."
Tab Hunter is gay
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/academys-new-voting-rules-raise-858388
Long read, but this is my favorite
Can you imagine what is said behind closed doors?
I keep wanting to refer to him as Aryan Poster Boy, Tab Hunter, which is probably unfair, but look at him in his prime. Hitler would have popped a nut.
OHThen you should have folded when you saw what a shit hand you had.
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.
Then you should have folded when you saw what a shit hand you had.
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.
Droll. Are you then, in favor of increasing discrimination against the elderly
Dolores Hart, 77, who for many decades has been a nun at the Abbey of Regina Laudis in Bethlehem, Conn., but who was an actress until the age of 24, and famously gave Elvis Presley his first on-screen kiss. "I've been an Academy member since 1960 and it does mean a lot to me, it really does," said Hart, who emphasized that she diligently watches almost all of the screeners she receives. "The older I get, the more I value the films that come and I have time to see them." She said she is not sure she'll continue to watch films "if I have no way to offer a comment about them," and feels other members moved to "emeritus" status will react the same way: "I think it's going to destroy their initiative. Why would you sit for all of those hours if you have no say in anything?"
Again, assertions require qualification. So far you are 0-2.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"
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 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.
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.
Isn't it ageism only if it affects everyone above a certain age?
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.
Or, you know, the poll tax analogy.
In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class.
Your analogies aren't logically similar.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.
I doubt that will change anytime soon. They are white before they're anything else.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.
The entire prop 8 thing still gets me heated.
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"
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 isn’t to attach positive or negative affect to something but to explore logical similarities.
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?
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.
that is whitest thing that I have ever seen since the white teenager danging gif
Academy Award-winning actress Helen Mirren lashed out at Hollywood ageism at TheWrap’s Power Breakfast in New York on Tuesday, calling it “f-cking outrageous” that 37-year-old Maggie Gyllenhaal was recently told she was too old to play the lover of a 55-year-old man.
“It’s f—-ing outrageous,” said Mirren, who turns 70 this year, to a packed room of more than 120 women entertainment, media, theater and digital. “It’s ridiculous. And ’twas ever thus. We all watched James Bond as he got more and more geriatric, and his girlfriends got younger and younger. It’s so annoying,” she said.
“There are things that are really disappointing about being an actress in Hollywood that surprise me all the time,” she said during an interview for an upcoming issue of TheWrap Magazine. “I’m 37 and I was told recently I was too old to play the lover of a man who was 55. It was astonishing to me. It made me feel bad, and then it made me feel angry, and then it made me laugh.”
I can't complain about it because I benefitted from it. When I was in my early twenties, parts would be written for women in their fifties and I would get them. And now I'm in my early thirties and I'm like, 'Why did that 24 year old get that part?' I was that 24 year old once, I can't be upset about it, it's the way things are. All I can do right now is think that thankfully you have built up perhaps a little bit of cachet and can tell stories that interest you and if people go to see them you'll be allowed to make more.
She also gave her views on ageism in Tinseltown, using her mother, Melanie Griffith, and grandmother, Tippi Hedren, as examples.
"Why isn't my mother in movies? She's an extraordinary actress! Why isn't my grandmother in movies? This industry is fucking brutal," she stated candidly. "No matter how tough you are, sometimes there's the feeling of not being wanted. It's absurd and cut-throat. Whenever I have downtime, I'm unsure that I will ever work again. I don't know what it is, but it's a definite thing that happens to me."
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.