• 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.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

TV shows in the UK will now have to meet diversity quotas on race, gender, sexuality and more to be eligible for BAFTA awards

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
625
638
335
If you dont want a diverse cast you can pick this option

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England
Or just go with a 50/50 gender split.
I don't mind a diverse cast or team, but in an art like movies exceptional work is not created by a diversity factor of people but by diverse thoughts, which are not bound to gender, regions or disabilities. By assuming that a diverse team of people creates better art than a less diverse team (mostly women, mostly men, mostly LGTBQ, ...) you're inherently assuming that less diverse groups are inferior in producing a good product, so you're probably against women, men, LGBTQ or whatever, because you think that they are not able to produce good art without the help of others, which or not a part of your artificial created groups. Sounds complicated, but suggests that you're a racist, xenophobe or homophobe, right?
 
Last edited:

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,798
1,593
710
By assuming that a diverse team of people creates better art than a less diverse team
Your argument only hold up if this assertion is widely believed and is the core reason as to why BFI and the Baftas have implemented this change.

Here's the comment from the CEO of the Baftas :

"Our aim is to bring the industry together to improve diversity and inclusion through sharing best practice, encouraging collaboration, driving change and, ultimately, to become more inclusive.”

Their aim is to be more inclusive rather than one groups produces better work than another like you are insinuating.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,909
11,260
980
Odd, how calls for inclusivity ultimately lead to the celebration of certain immutable characteristics being excluded.











And, of course this - from the publication above:

Note that the Twitter reply also fails at understanding 'what diversity looks like'.



People need to learn what 'diversity' actually means.
Not the identity-politics bastardisation of it.

Diversity for the sake of diversity is a toxic red herring.

Incidentally, if you would like to take issue with this post, please ensure you keep context in mind and avoid using strawmen. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
625
638
335
Your argument only hold up if this assertion is widely believed and is the core reason as to why BFI and the Baftas have implemented this change.

Here's the comment from the CEO of the Baftas :

"Our aim is to bring the industry together to improve diversity and inclusion through sharing best practice, encouraging collaboration, driving change and, ultimately, to become more inclusive.”

Their aim is to be more inclusive rather than one groups produces better work than another like you are insinuating.
"Our aim"? What is their aim and why do they have it?
What are these "best practises", who developed these and where is the evidences that these are "best practises"?
Encouraging by handing out criteria that you need to match to be eligible for an award?
"Driving change"? What change? In what direction?
"More inclusive"? Really? Is there any evidence people based on their gender, ethnicity etc. were rejected in the past?


Encouraging is the word that they use. Forcing is what they do.

According to their list...


  • A 50-50 gender balance -> Women/Men pick different jobs, have different interests etc. ...natural 50-50 balance can only be forced.

  • 20% belonging to an under-represented ethnic group -> Ratios (real world numbers vs targeted number) are completly different. Only achievable if forced.

  • 10% LGBTQ+ -> Same as above. Only achievable if forced.

  • 7% D/deaf and disabled -> No defintion of "disabled". Numbers sounds okay, but depending on the disability maybe hard to reach, because people can't or don't want to work in this area. You probably have to force it.

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England -> Inconsistent. What's up with men/women, disabled people or LGTBQ people of London and the South East of England? If where i come from is a factor, isn't it called discrimination?

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors are from a lower socioeconomic background -> Very confusing. To have a lower socioeconomic background requires you have lower income. So i have to pay less to these people so they're are still considered "low socioeconomic background" or otherwise i'm not able to achieve this point? How do you control this criteria? What about qualifications? Do they play a role in why people have a "low socioeconomic background"? Isn't it discriminatory if my socioeconimic background is important?
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: llien
Dec 15, 2011
4,909
11,260
980
The titles a bit of a nest stir. If you don't want a BAFTA then don't worry about it.
"Bothered by practices that promote prejudice and discrimination?

Pfft. Just ignore them."

Another cut-out-and-keep classic from our favourite Russian agent.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,311
4,974
740
It's seems like one of the best movies of all time, 12 Angry Men, would have a hard time being nominated for any awards these days and that's pretty sad. I mean the whole movie is just 12 straight white guys in a room.

To OP: I wasn’t aware of the movie Parasite, it looks good. Been a fan of Kang-ho Song, ever since I watched Memories of Murder. I’ll be sure to check it out. Thanks.
It's the same director as Memories of Murder as well. He likes to use Song a lot, they also did Snowpiercer and The Host together.
 

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,798
1,593
710
"Our aim"? What is their aim and why do they have it?
What are these "best practises", who developed these and where is the evidences that these are "best practises"?
Encouraging by handing out criteria that you need to match to be eligible for an award?
"Driving change"? What change? In what direction?
"More inclusive"? Really? Is there any evidence people based on their gender, ethnicity etc. were rejected in the past?


Encouraging is the word that they use. Forcing is what they do.

According to their list...


  • A 50-50 gender balance -> Women/Men pick different jobs, have different interests etc. ...natural 50-50 balance can only be forced.

  • 20% belonging to an under-represented ethnic group -> Ratios (real world numbers vs targeted number) are completly different. Only achievable if forced.

  • 10% LGBTQ+ -> Same as above. Only achievable if forced.

  • 7% D/deaf and disabled -> No defintion of "disabled". Numbers sounds okay, but depending on the disability maybe hard to reach, because people can't or don't want to work in this area. You probably have to force it.

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England -> Inconsistent. What's up with men/women, disabled people or LGTBQ people of London and the South East of England? If where i come from is a factor, isn't it called discrimination?

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors are from a lower socioeconomic background -> Very confusing. To have a lower socioeconomic background requires you have lower income. So i have to pay less to these people so they're are still considered "low socioeconomic background" or otherwise i'm not able to achieve this point? How do you control this criteria? What about qualifications? Do they play a role in why people have a "low socioeconomic background"? Isn't it discriminatory if my socioeconimic background is important?
Again you're making the same mistake as other posters.

What do you understand about the demographics you've posted.. do you think a film or tv show needs to include each of them .. or just some ?

And while we are on the topic let's break down this statistics into a real world view of the UK to show you where the inclusion methodology comes from



  • 20% belonging to an under-represented ethnic group -> 20% of the population in the UK identify with an ethnic group other than White British

  • 10% LGBTQ+ -> 93.2% of the uk population are heterosexual - maybe this is the only over ambitious target they have.

  • 7% D/deaf and disabled -> 21% of the UK population have a disability

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England -> London and SE England has to much power in the Media in terms of where talent is sourced from filming. Its means smaller communities dont get represented

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors are from a lower socioeconomic background -> seems like an anti elitist move to diverse the rich upper class echelon

Fair representation is something that is always a positive and we normally strive for it in media and TV
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobody_Important

IKSTUGA

Member
Jan 9, 2019
396
282
345
No... Just no... This ideology is so whack... I mean it's good to have a diverse set of characters and all, but this is just autistically pedantic.
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
625
638
335
You completely ignored what i've said. Men and women are different. They pick different jobs, can have diffierent interests and so on. Classic different but equal story. That's why a forced 50-50 will not work. Just check jobs like cosmeticians, kindergarten teachers, hairdressers and many others. If men are preferred and privileged, why there are so few men in these jobs?


  • 20% belonging to an under-represented ethnic group -> 20% of the population in the UK identify with an ethnic group other than White British
You're mixing up race and ethnicity. Skin color has nothing to do ethnicity.



  • 10% LGBTQ+ -> 93.2% of the uk population are heterosexual - maybe this is the only over ambitious target they have.
Even if you more or less agreed with me the number is way more off than you think. Check the statistics and you will see that 4.1% didn't answer the questions about their sexual orientations. So the number of heterosexuals is even higher. You just assume that these 4.1% are LGBTQ, which is not true.


  • 7% D/deaf and disabled -> 21% of the UK population have a disability
Again you more or less agree. I've already said, that it highly depends of what "disability" means. This criteria is worded way too vague to be able to provide any numbers for it.


  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England -> London and SE England has to much power in the Media in terms of where talent is sourced from filming. Its means smaller communities dont get represented
Why does it have so much power? Are other people bound to the region of their origin? What prevents other communities in engaging in these activities? Are they suppressed (Spoiler: no)?
And what kind of non-sense is this in general? Now i can play the victim card whenver somebody achieves something by just pointing out that i'm from another geographical region?


  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors are from a lower socioeconomic background -> seems like an anti elitist move to diverse the rich upper class echelon
"Seems" is not a good companion for facts. Do you seriously believe people asking or care for the socioeconomic background during the job interview?

Director: "How much did you, your family or grandparents earn?"
Applicant: "Less than average."
Director: "Bye."
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,311
4,974
740
Again you're making the same mistake as other posters.

What do you understand about the demographics you've posted.. do you think a film or tv show needs to include each of them .. or just some ?

And while we are on the topic let's break down this statistics into a real world view of the UK to show you where the inclusion methodology comes from



  • 20% belonging to an under-represented ethnic group -> 20% of the population in the UK identify with an ethnic group other than White British

  • 10% LGBTQ+ -> 93.2% of the uk population are heterosexual - maybe this is the only over ambitious target they have.

  • 7% D/deaf and disabled -> 21% of the UK population have a disability

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England -> London and SE England has to much power in the Media in terms of where talent is sourced from filming. Its means smaller communities dont get represented

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors are from a lower socioeconomic background -> seems like an anti elitist move to diverse the rich upper class echelon

Fair representation is something that is always a positive and we normally strive for it in media and TV
We get what you're saying but It still messed up to have to comply with all that, if you want your work to be recognized by BAFTA. Awards for film making should recognize excellence in film making, period. Like I posted above, 12 Angry Men is a masterpiece that wouldn't be eligible for BAFTA if it came out today as it did in 1957 and that's beyond pathetic. It's also racial discrimination because an all black cast would meet the diversity criteria while an all white cast would not.

People should be free to tell the stories they want to tell, and cast whoever they want and still be eligible for awards if their work deserves it. If minorities want more representation then let them study writing, directing, acting, etc... and make their own movies with the stories they want to tell. Asians (or Orientals as you brits call them) have no problem succeeding in white majority countries despite (non-existant) "white supremacy". Unfortunately whether it be in the US or UK, black hip-hop, thug-life culture is toxic and promotes criminality and violence to impressionable young black kids, pair that with the far-leftist media constantly telling them that they can't succeed because of their skin color in a "white man's world", well then it's easy to understand why so many turn to crime to try to make a living. You love when social media giants deplatform people you disagree with and yet I never heard you once ask to deplatform violent UK gangs that have facebook and instagram pages where they boast of their murders and other violent crimes and show off their ill -gotten wealth. Those pages do a lot more harm than Jordan Peterson could ever do. What we need is not equality of outcome but equality of opportunity. We need to free black kids of their imposed perceptions and tell them that they can do whatever they want if they work hard for it which is the truth. White people aren't just given things because of their skin color, my cousin is a film-maker, who worked his ass off and he's still struggling a lot, it's a tough career path for anyone, but he's sticking to it and hopefully it'll pay off someday, he's still in his early twenties so he's got time but it probably won't come easy if it does come.
 

Guynamedbilly

Member
Feb 28, 2018
501
468
375
At least they don't claim it makes the show better. They said their trying to unite the industry on inclusivity, not quality. So this begs the question, if a show is interested in being the highest quality, why would they even want a Bafta anymore?
 

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,798
1,593
710
You completely ignored what i've said. Men and women are different. They pick different jobs, can have diffierent interests and so on. Classic different but equal story. That's why a forced 50-50 will not work. Just check jobs like cosmeticians, kindergarten teachers, hairdressers and many others. If men are preferred and privileged, why there are so few men in these jobs?
Your pulling a statistic without any facts, have you looked into the number of male vs female actors in the UK industry? You could only come to that conclusion if you have and I doubt you have.

Again it's about inclusions and fair representation on TV. TV and films to some extent should reflect its audience and kn the UK that's about 50/50 gender balance.



You're mixing up race and ethnicity. Skin color has nothing to do ethnicity.
The numbers quoted are official government numbers on ethnicity which is exactly what the BFI is using. You may be confused on this bit.

Even if you more or less agreed with me the number is way more off than you think. Check the statistics and you will see that 4.1% didn't answer the questions about their sexual orientations. So the number of heterosexuals is even higher. You just assume that these 4.1% are LGBTQ, which is not true
I've not I've actually assumed anything but telling you the number of people who claim to be Heterosexual. You have assumed that it must be higher without any proof. Which is why I never gave a direct statistics for that

Again you more or less agree. I've already said, that it highly depends of what "disability" means. This criteria is worded way too vague to be able to provide any numbers for it.
Its not really vague, you are either labelled disabled or not.

Why does it have so much power? Are other people bound to the region of their origin? What prevents other communities in engaging in these activities? Are they suppressed (Spoiler: no)?
And what kind of non-sense is this in general? Now i can play the victim card whenver somebody achieves something by just pointing out that i'm from another geographical region?
You seem to have also misunderstood this bit aswell. If you are only recruiting talent from a sub section of the country that is leaving out a significant proportion of the country. This is why people move to London to find work in TV and Films because this is where everyone will look. No one is looking for talent in Scunthorpe. This is literally the answer to your question

"Seems" is not a good companion for facts. Do you seriously believe people asking or care for the socioeconomic background during the job interview?
It's very easy to find out what someone's socioeconomic background is without asking them in an interview.
 
May 7, 2014
4,731
785
625
United Kingdom
Oh no! You mean I wouldn't be nominated to recieve a shitty miniature statue and a pat on the back by a board of judges after my non-eligible show has already been proven a success with the masses?

Oh woe is me!

 
Last edited:

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,798
1,593
710
We get what you're saying but It still messed up to have to comply with all that, if you want your work to be recognized by BAFTA. Awards for film making should recognize excellence in film making, period. Like I posted above, 12 Angry Men is a masterpiece that wouldn't be eligible for BAFTA if it came out today as it did in 1957 and that's beyond pathetic. It's also racial discrimination because an all black cast would meet the diversity criteria while an all white cast would not.
Nope 12 Angry Men will still be nominated this only applies to British Films being put forward

"The Diversity Standards have been adopted by Film4 and BBC Films, so are a requirement for the majority of public funding for film in the UK. Achieving the Standards is also an eligibility requirement for the BAFTA Film Awards categories for Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer. The British Independent Film Awards (BIFA) has expanded their pilot of the Standards to all British feature film categories and the Best British Short Film award in 2019."

People should be free to tell the stories they want to tell, and cast whoever they want and still be eligible for awards if their work deserves it. If minorities want more representation then let them study writing, directing, acting, etc... and make their own movies with the stories they want to tell. Asians (or Orientals as you brits call them) have no problem succeeding in white majority countries despite (non-existant) "white supremacy". Unfortunately whether it be in the US or UK, black hip-hop, thug-life culture is toxic and promotes criminality and violence to impressionable young black kids, pair that with the far-leftist media constantly telling them that they can't succeed because of their skin color in a "white man's world", well then it's easy to understand why so many turn to crime to try to make a living. You love when social media giants deplatform people you disagree with and yet I never heard you once ask to deplatform violent UK gangs that have facebook and instagram pages where they boast of their murders and other violent crimes and show off their ill -gotten wealth. Those pages do a lot more harm than Jordan Peterson could ever do. What we need is not equality of outcome but equality of opportunity. We need to free black kids of their imposed perceptions and tell them that they can do whatever they want if they work hard for it which is the truth. White people aren't just given things because of their skin color, my cousin is a film-maker, who worked his ass off and he's still struggling a lot, it's a tough career path for anyone, but he's sticking to it and hopefully it'll pay off someday, he's still in his early twenties so he's got time but it probably won't come easy if it does come.
  • People are free to tell what stories they want, this is not a law
  • Minorities are studying producing and writing - but it's clearly not to your standards
  • Conversation about Gangs having Snap and Insta Accounts has never been raised on here so dont know what you would think I would have mentioned it by now.
 

Guynamedbilly

Member
Feb 28, 2018
501
468
375
The real question is why not?

Is there a strong argument against having a diverse film and tv industry?
You made the assertion. I'd like an explanation for why someone should be compelled to do something they would not have done otherwise. It seems like a reasonable request.
 

Dee Dah Dave

Member
Nov 24, 2013
5,665
891
485
England, UK
If I was black or brown I would frankly be embarrassed at all the mollycoddling. I would want to steer well clear of it and prove myself on my own merit, not by having my hand constantly held.
 

OptimusApex

Formerly 'AfricanKing' ... purposely obtuse
Jul 16, 2017
1,798
1,593
710
You made the assertion. I'd like an explanation for why someone should be compelled to do something they would not have done otherwise. It seems like a reasonable request.
No one is being compelled , it's a requirement for BFI funding. Film makers are more than welcome to fund their films though other means.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,311
4,974
740
Nope 12 Angry Men will still be nominated this only applies to British Films being put forward

"The Diversity Standards have been adopted by Film4 and BBC Films, so are a requirement for the majority of public funding for film in the UK. Achieving the Standards is also an eligibility requirement for the BAFTA Film Awards categories for Outstanding British Film and Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer. The British Independent Film Awards (BIFA) has expanded their pilot of the Standards to all British feature film categories and the Best British Short Film award in 2019."



  • People are free to tell what stories they want, this is not a law
  • Minorities are studying producing and writing - but it's clearly not to your standards
  • Conversation about Gangs having Snap and Insta Accounts has never been raised on here so dont know what you would think I would have mentioned it by now.
I obviously meant if 12 Angry Men came out as a British Film, and I think you knew that and instead of responding to the issue you went straight to nitpick that. But like I said this kind of thinking will makes it's way to America eventually. I can see the oscars and emmys applying similar eligibility guidelines.

People aren't free to tell the stories they want. If a British filmmaker wants to tell the story of 5 white straight male friends who go on a hiking trip in woods and it goes south from there, he wouldn't be eligible for an award even if his film was amazing; is that fair to you? Shouldn't awards recognize excellence rather than diversity? Awards are important for film-makers as it often helps them land more work, get better pay, etc... But it's not only awards, I'm sure the BBC employs similar guidelines for the shows that appear on their channels, maybe other public channels do as well? There's a good chance this flawed thinking will expand to not just awards but not being able to have your work put out at all. It's a very slippery slope.

I never said minorities weren't studying aspects of film-making just that the number would probably be higher if they thought they had an equal shot, since very few people, regardless of their race or gender, actually make it, out of all those studying.

As for gangs having social media accounts I've brought it up several times in deplatforming threads. I'm not saying you think they're good or anything just that I don't recall you mentioning them in any deplatforming threads before. But once again you seem to be sidestepping the issue, it would be nice for you to express your viewpoint on the matter. Would you support deplatforming of those pages?
 
Last edited:
Mar 30, 2012
8,718
104
555
You'd think that especially in a creative field people would be allowed the freedom to create art in accordance with their vision rather than having their hands tied like this.

I've fully given up on the whole diversity drive in my line of work. Speaking out against it is like a death sentence. My aim is just to keep my head down and get through my career, hopefully before being a straight white male makes you completely persona non grata.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Boss Mog

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Nope 12 Angry Men will still be nominated this only applies to British Films being put forward.
What if they decide to remake the movie? If they decided to stick with the original sort of cast (all white men) should they be excluded not only from funding but from the chance to win an award?

Implicitly, they require candidates to project a certain message and image.

It's propaganda, dude. 🤷‍♀️

Also, the filmmaker can fund their own film, that's true. This guideline appears to still exclude them from receiving awards if they do not meet the diversity quota. Stuff like that happened over here in Hollywood where we blacklisted people who were accused of being communists.

It will be interesting to see someone actually try to implement a diversity quota on such a scale, though. Will we finally get to see concrete numbers for how to make a given group "diverse-acceptable"?

The friends sitting in their living room during this section of your show.

Hmm.

*steeples fingers under nose*

I've noticed there is only one black person.

Sorry bloke,, but under Section 420.69 of Diversity Quota Integrity Programme we require at least three dark-skinned individuals in a group of seven engaged in social gathering. In fact, I might even write you a ticket for "black tokenism" and "perpetuating myths about lack of black monogamous relationships" because it was only one black person and not at least two.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

Guynamedbilly

Member
Feb 28, 2018
501
468
375
Do you know what compelled means?

I'll have to make the assumption that you don't have a reason why they should reflect their audience then.

Ok, in that case I'll give a reason why they should not then. Are all shows watched by a representative proportion of the population? Do the same percentage of Indian viewers watch The Great British Bake off as watch say The Indian Doctor? Why would you want to water their cultural representation down to meet some quota that doesn't even represent that show's audience?
 

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
625
638
335
Your pulling a statistic without any facts, have you looked into the number of male vs female actors in the UK industry? You could only come to that conclusion if you have and I doubt you have.

Again it's about inclusions and fair representation on TV. TV and films to some extent should reflect its audience and kn the UK that's about 50/50 gender balance.
I feel like i'm trapped in a time loop.

A "fair" representation (50-50) is not possible, because people have different interests.



The numbers quoted are official government numbers on ethnicity which is exactly what the BFI is using. You may be confused on this bit.
The officials numbers are that more than 87% of the people in the UK are white. But that adds nothing to the fact that ethnicity has nothing to do with skin color. If the government or the corporation instructed by the government to provide these statistics, than i'm sorry that the government or the responsible institution doesn't even get the basics right.



I've not I've actually assumed anything but telling you the number of people who claim to be Heterosexual. You have assumed that it must be higher without any proof. Which is why I never gave a direct statistics for that
True. You did not assume it, you've just said it like it is a fact that "93.2% are heterosexual", which is no true. The number is higher, like i've already explained previously.


Its not really vague, you are either labelled disabled or not.
We turn around in cirlces here. But it doesn't matter, because i this point was the only one i did not disagree with from the beginning.


You seem to have also misunderstood this bit aswell. If you are only recruiting talent from a sub section of the country that is leaving out a significant proportion of the country. This is why people move to London to find work in TV and Films because this is where everyone will look. No one is looking for talent in Scunthorpe. This is literally the answer to your question
Can you provide evidence, that only people from a specific sub section of the country are hired? Why did you assume this? Do you really think it play any role where you come from during the hiring process?
Furthermore job offerings are almost always global nowadays. I never saw any job offer that said something like "Please live in London if you want to work for us". Don't mix up "diversity" with a changing demographic.


It's very easy to find out what someone's socioeconomic background is without asking them in an interview.
If that's the case, isn't it more likely that is has something to do with qualifications and education? Again, i think you try to blend in so many things, that have nothing to do with diversity.
 

Turkey Master Baster

Formerly 'StarlightLotice'
Dec 25, 2018
1,854
1,431
665
Manchester, England
Even if they have to follow the diversity rules for Film/TV, I doubt the talented Directors/Film Crew who are of an Ethnic Minority will get the same Budget/Pay as someone who is established, older and likely in the majority group.

If the Awards at least brings up discussion about Equal Pay regardless of gender/sex/age, then that would be a positive.

If it is just about minorities then that is likely going to provide a negative impact
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,236
840
No one is stopping you from critically thinking from your wooden shack in the middle of the woods. Funny you mention free think when you only go after posters that have a different view from you.
Wasn't to me, but,..

Of course people only go after people they disagree with. 'Free think' doesn't mean everyone has a completely different view, or that we can't agree with people, or that you give bad ideas a free pass. It means each idea can be heard, and when you hear a bad idea, you are free to speak out against it without fear of action taken against you.

You are defending what is literal institutionalized racism. What's worse, is this stuff is so ideologically broken the people writing it think they are fighting institutionalized racism by writing racially charged and divisive policy. Nobody is trying to ban you for your regressive, racist views, we are trying to talk you back from the edge.
 

Birdo

Member
Jun 12, 2019
1,387
3,812
480
UK
BFI already required half of your cast (and crew) to be "Non-White" in a fucking country that's 87% white.
 
Last edited:

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,629
418
595
Your argument only hold up if this assertion is widely believed and is the core reason as to why BFI and the Baftas have implemented this change.

Here's the comment from the CEO of the Baftas :

"Our aim is to bring the industry together to improve diversity and inclusion through sharing best practice, encouraging collaboration, driving change and, ultimately, to become more inclusive.”

Their aim is to be more inclusive rather than one groups produces better work than another like you are insinuating.
Why do we need inclusion in first place?
 

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,629
418
595
I've fully given up on the whole diversity drive in my line of work. Speaking out against it is like a death sentence. My aim is just to keep my head down and get through my career, hopefully before being a straight white male makes you completely persona non grata.
It is a mass hysteria/cult.
 

Denton

Member
Mar 11, 2014
5,848
524
520
UK has been insane for a while, this is par for the course. I just hope this brain rot doesn't infect my country and countries east of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breakage
Oct 26, 2018
5,290
4,555
460
"Our aim"? What is their aim and why do they have it?
What are these "best practises", who developed these and where is the evidences that these are "best practises"?
Encouraging by handing out criteria that you need to match to be eligible for an award?
"Driving change"? What change? In what direction?
"More inclusive"? Really? Is there any evidence people based on their gender, ethnicity etc. were rejected in the past?


Encouraging is the word that they use. Forcing is what they do.

According to their list...


  • A 50-50 gender balance -> Women/Men pick different jobs, have different interests etc. ...natural 50-50 balance can only be forced.

  • 20% belonging to an under-represented ethnic group -> Ratios (real world numbers vs targeted number) are completly different. Only achievable if forced.

  • 10% LGBTQ+ -> Same as above. Only achievable if forced.

  • 7% D/deaf and disabled -> No defintion of "disabled". Numbers sounds okay, but depending on the disability maybe hard to reach, because people can't or don't want to work in this area. You probably have to force it.

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors resident in the UK outside of London and the South East of England -> Inconsistent. What's up with men/women, disabled people or LGTBQ people of London and the South East of England? If where i come from is a factor, isn't it called discrimination?

  • Significant amount of contributors or competitors are from a lower socioeconomic background -> Very confusing. To have a lower socioeconomic background requires you have lower income. So i have to pay less to these people so they're are still considered "low socioeconomic background" or otherwise i'm not able to achieve this point? How do you control this criteria? What about qualifications? Do they play a role in why people have a "low socioeconomic background"? Isn't it discriminatory if my socioeconimic background is important?
There is no doubt that discriminatory hiring criteria like this will have some kind of government influence.

Thats how companies get awarded "best managed company" awards. Has little to do good bosses. Most of the croteria have to do with analyzing employee demographics of who is hired.

The reason why government tries to enforce things like this (Canadian supplier contracts have similar quotas) is so losers can get an easy job. This should mean they won't rely on gov handouts as much.

So put pressure on companies to do the dirty work instead of the gov trying to train people to find their own job based on merit.

As silly as it seems the gov doesnt even seem to follow this. The vast majority of politicians are white, able bodies guys! Wheres all the minority females with a disability?
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
5,290
4,555
460
BFI already required half of your cast (and crew) to be "Non-White" in a fucking country that's 87% white.
Thats how it goes for media.

If you give unqualified people a job it keeps them employed so they won't ask for gov handouts.

Also by showcasing minorities on tv being successful, its supposed to (in theory) show any losers at home people of same background can be successful, well dressed and can speak cleary..... kind of like a force fed ego booster for morons to strive for success.
 

Shrap

Member
Aug 26, 2019
72
195
235
You all need to understand that diversity is skin deep. If you think otherwise then you are shallow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MetalAlien

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,605
1,113
650
San Francisco, CA
"Diversity quotas" are bullshit. Having all blacks is diverse, but having all whites is not. Having all women is diverse, but having all men aren't. A white guy who grew up in a coastal city is not diverse to the white guy who grew up in a midwest farm.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,430
2,588
1,500
They dont actually have to have a diverse range of actors or crew members they can opt for other qualifiers.

Try educating yourself abit
For art, this is a disaster. Period.

There should be absolutely no qualifiers to begin with, at any job but with art you select those who best understand your vision, or fit your vision.

At least it's only for idiotic awards. If this was mandatory, you could see a huge swath of productions flee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,430
2,588
1,500
But what if your art was to try to pass off your endorsement of prejudice and discrimination as virtue?
Art is in the eye of the beholder, and those that create it.

I don't care about the subject/topic.

Any constraints on creation goes against the very core of art itself.

I find this very disturbing. Some of these production teams have been together for quite some time. Are they going to have to hire/fire just for the sake of it?

Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat