Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My understanding was that affirmative action amounted to "if you have two roughly equivalent candidates, you have to employ the most disadvantaged of the two(based on whichever criteria you're using)", this goes quite a few steps beyond that and would actually mandate hiring X number of Y disadvantaged group even if that would mean passing over substantially more qualified, experienced, or well-referenced people.

I can see the argument for the first concept, but the second is nothing more than an explicit reversal of the very wrong it's supposedly there to redress.

 Yodhrin wrote:
That's not how productions on this kind of scale work chief. Having the absolute best possible "behind the scenes" crew vs one that's like 10% less effective because the hiring was quota-based is not going to make a fig of a difference to the box office either way. It'll make a pretty big difference to the folk not getting jobs because some overpaid actor has decided what skin colour or genitals you were born with is more important than your experience and skill though.

Sounds like it a complete non-issue, then. What a relief!

 feeder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That's not how productions on this kind of scale work chief. Having the absolute best possible "behind the scenes" crew vs one that's like 10% less effective because the hiring was quota-based is not going to make a fig of a difference to the box office either way. It'll make a pretty big difference to the folk not getting jobs because some overpaid actor has decided what skin colour or genitals you were born with is more important than your experience and skill though.

Sounds like it a complete non-issue, then. What a relief!

I always wonder if people who take this kind of attitude grasp how utterly it undermines the logic of equality and damages our chances of achieving it. Or did you not realise you just argued that racism and sexism aren't, inherently, actually problems?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That's not how productions on this kind of scale work chief. Having the absolute best possible "behind the scenes" crew vs one that's like 10% less effective because the hiring was quota-based is not going to make a fig of a difference to the box office either way. It'll make a pretty big difference to the folk not getting jobs because some overpaid actor has decided what skin colour or genitals you were born with is more important than your experience and skill though.

Sounds like it a complete non-issue, then. What a relief!

I always wonder if people who take this kind of attitude grasp how utterly it undermines the logic of equality and damages our chances of achieving it. Or did you not realise you just argued that racism and sexism aren't, inherently, actually problems?

Since having the 'very best man for the job' isn't that important to the film's bottom line, then there is no problem with ensuring that a representative cross section of society is part of the crew.

 feeder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That's not how productions on this kind of scale work chief. Having the absolute best possible "behind the scenes" crew vs one that's like 10% less effective because the hiring was quota-based is not going to make a fig of a difference to the box office either way. It'll make a pretty big difference to the folk not getting jobs because some overpaid actor has decided what skin colour or genitals you were born with is more important than your experience and skill though.

Sounds like it a complete non-issue, then. What a relief!

I always wonder if people who take this kind of attitude grasp how utterly it undermines the logic of equality and damages our chances of achieving it. Or did you not realise you just argued that racism and sexism aren't, inherently, actually problems?

Since having the 'very best man for the job' isn't that important to the film's bottom line, then there is no problem with ensuring that a representative cross section of society is part of the crew.

If your sole judgement of what's good is the bottom line, sure. If we're trying to build a better, more representative society rather than engage in some conscience-salving tokenism, however, then hypocrisy and double-standards can only ever damage that aspiration. Either it's wrong to make decisions on who to employ exclusively based on sex or race, or it's not. If it is wrong, it is always wrong, regardless of what race or sex is at issue in any given case. You cannot address structural injustice with more structural injustice, and trying to do so just erodes support - "I want employment to be fair and based on who is best qualified and experienced, regardless of irrelevant factors like race and sex and sexual preference" is an ideal, you don't live up to and promote that ideal by adding "...unless we're talking about whites or males or straights, that lot can feth themselves.".

 Yodhrin wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That's not how productions on this kind of scale work chief. Having the absolute best possible "behind the scenes" crew vs one that's like 10% less effective because the hiring was quota-based is not going to make a fig of a difference to the box office either way. It'll make a pretty big difference to the folk not getting jobs because some overpaid actor has decided what skin colour or genitals you were born with is more important than your experience and skill though.

Sounds like it a complete non-issue, then. What a relief!

I always wonder if people who take this kind of attitude grasp how utterly it undermines the logic of equality and damages our chances of achieving it. Or did you not realise you just argued that racism and sexism aren't, inherently, actually problems?

Since having the 'very best man for the job' isn't that important to the film's bottom line, then there is no problem with ensuring that a representative cross section of society is part of the crew.

If your sole judgement of what's good is the bottom line, sure. If we're trying to build a better, more representative society rather than engage in some conscience-salving tokenism, however, then hypocrisy and double-standards can only ever damage that aspiration. Either it's wrong to make decisions on who to employ exclusively based on sex or race, or it's not. If it is wrong, it is always wrong, regardless of what race or sex is at issue in any given case. You cannot address structural injustice with more structural injustice, and trying to do so just erodes support - "I want employment to be fair and based on who is best qualified and experienced, regardless of irrelevant factors like race and sex and sexual preference" is an ideal, you don't live up to and promote that ideal by adding "...unless we're talking about whites or males or straights, that lot can feth themselves.".

I think what you're failing to grasp is that the field has been dominated by generally white males for so long that getting your foot in the door is extremely hard as anyone who doesn't meet those standards. Especially when those guys benefited from the current system and choose their successors that they train and take on. The reason affirmative action is generally a non-issue now is that diversity hiring has been happening long enough that it's become a non-issue as the qualifying groups are larger now. Same will happen with the inclusion rider. You do know that people can be as good at others at something and just not have the "rep" that comes with working on certain movies or with certain people right?

 Yodhrin wrote:
My understanding was that affirmative action amounted to "if you have two roughly equivalent candidates, you have to employ the most disadvantaged of the two(based on whichever criteria you're using)", this goes quite a few steps beyond that and would actually mandate hiring X number of Y disadvantaged group even if that would mean passing over substantially more qualified, experienced, or well-referenced people.

I can see the argument for the first concept, but the second is nothing more than an explicit reversal of the very wrong it's supposedly there to redress.

No the rider is how AA actually works in many institutions.Its ok. The Boy, he's in his own world of theoretical formulas where very few exist.My daughter can ring the bell on one to three of those bells and besides, she's the smart one.

Text, picture of ziploc bag
Me: whats this?
GC: bag full of ants.
Me: what for? Roommate tick you off? (see how compassionate I am?)
GC: we are going to analyze their DNA to see if they came from a one queen colony or multi queen colony (multiqueen colonies the ant's don't have certain scent genes else they would realize the different strain and its HIVE CITY FIGHT CLUB!) and what the differences are.
Me: so this is what you did all weekend?
GC: yes, at the research field in Lost Pines.
SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED: So you were out standing in your field? Get it?
Me/GC: face palm.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
My understanding was that affirmative action amounted to "if you have two roughly equivalent candidates, you have to employ the most disadvantaged of the two(based on whichever criteria you're using)", this goes quite a few steps beyond that and would actually mandate hiring X number of Y disadvantaged group even if that would mean passing over substantially more qualified, experienced, or well-referenced people.

I can see the argument for the first concept, but the second is nothing more than an explicit reversal of the very wrong it's supposedly there to redress.

No the rider is how AA actually works in many institutions.Its ok. The Boy, he's in his own world of theoretical formulas where very few exist.My daughter can ring the bell on one to three of those bells and besides, she's the smart one.

Text, picture of ziploc bag
Me: whats this?
GC: bag full of ants.
Me: what for? Roommate tick you off? (see how compassionate I am?)
GC: we are going to analyze their DNA to see if they came from a one queen colony or multi queen colony (multiqueen colonies the ant's don't have certain scent genes else they would realize the different strain and its HIVE CITY FIGHT CLUB!) and what the differences are.
Me: so this is what you did all weekend?
GC: yes, at the research field in Lost Pines.
SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED: So you were out standing in your field? Get it?
Me/GC: face palm.

That is a quality dad joke from the Mrs. I tip my hat.

 Yodhrin wrote:
My understanding was that affirmative action amounted to "if you have two roughly equivalent candidates, you have to employ the most disadvantaged of the two(based on whichever criteria you're using)", this goes quite a few steps beyond that and would actually mandate hiring X number of Y disadvantaged group even if that would mean passing over substantially more qualified, experienced, or well-referenced people.

I can see the argument for the first concept, but the second is nothing more than an explicit reversal of the very wrong it's supposedly there to redress.

Well you have to ask the question, "Why are white people more likely to have greater experience in a field?" If the answer to that question is "Institutionalized racism", which it is, then the rider makes a lot of sense. Since the people who have been screwed over by this need the experience to become a more experienced and qualified person, forcing the production company to provide this experience instead of continuing the perpetuate the problem makes a whole lot of sense.

Or you know, "grrr reverse racism, this isn't an extremely complex issue, grr!!" if you want.

Theoretical question: if every actor/actress adopts a rider calling for a certain demographic to make up 50% of said field/job/bumbledeeflorp, but that demographic only makes up 7% of the total pool of employees to fill that spot, what then? Hire completely inexperienced people who don't necessarily want that job solely to meet the quota? Constantly use those same 7% and castrate the earnings of the other 93% spread evenly across the board as you rotate out the white cis hets?

 Just Tony wrote:
Theoretical question: if every actor/actress adopts a rider calling for a certain demographic to make up 50% of said field/job/bumbledeeflorp, but that demographic only makes up 7% of the total pool of employees to fill that spot, what then? Hire completely inexperienced people who don't necessarily want that job solely to meet the quota? Constantly use those same 7% and castrate the earnings of the other 93% spread evenly across the board as you rotate out the white cis hets?

I think the theory behind an inclusion rider is the crew needs to match the demographic of the area.

I suspect the problem in Hollywood is nepotism, not racism.

Like any job with a (relatively) low barrier of entry and high pay, most available jobs are going to be given to a friend or family member of someone already in the business.

That tends to keep a crew ethnically homogeneous.

I can't remember whose interview I was watching but it was a lady and she'd produced, written and directed a film that was done entirely by women outside of the male actor parts in the film. I don't think it was lady byrd but it was something similar. What asked if she meant for it to be all women she said no, initially she set out to have it be about half women because the way crews are picked is essentially everyone whose worked with someone before grabs that person if available creating the same crew on a lot of films.

She felt this meant getting your foot in the door, particularly if you were female, was extremely hard. So they wanted to basically open the door to women to start building that same "cred" their male counterparts have enjoyed for decades. And then they just kept finding people they felt were excellent that just happened to be women and the crew turned out like it did.

So I see the inclusion thing the same way I see affirmative action. Affirmative action was a needed piece that broke the gate keeping people out of jobs because it forced people to stop hiring in overtly racist or nepotistic fashions and expanded the pool of now qualified people for most fields so much so that I haven't heard affirmative action thrown around at all in probably 15 years. Essentially the inclusion rider will only need to really exist for a few year for other groups to build their reputations and then you'll see it not matter anymore (or you'll know it was racism )

 Blackie wrote:
I've alway been a fan of the Academy Awards ceremony, even considering all the contradictions and issues the festival usually has. So do you agree with the awards? Did you like the movies? I'm a huge fan of Del Toro and I'm glad he won, but The Shape Of Water is IMHO his worst movie ever, the only one of his filmography that I didn't like. Blade Runner 2049 is my favorite 2017 movie and I think it deserved to get more nominations among the most important ones. Get Out definitely the most overrated movie, along with The Post. I'm shocked about The Disaster's Artist's nomination since I consider it the worst movie of the year along with Mother!. Here's the movies that were in the competition that I've seen, and my personal vote:


The Shape Of Water: 4/10

Dunkirk: 8/10

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: 7/10

Call Me By Your Name: 7/10

Lady Bird: 7/10

Darkest Hour: 7/10

I, Tonya: 7/10

Get Out: 6/10

The Post: 6/10

Coco: 8/10

The Square: 5/10

Loveless: 6/10

Victoria & Abdul: 6/10

The Disaster Artist: 3/10

Baby Driver: 8/10

Blade Runner 2049: 9/10

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: 7/10

Kong Skull Island: 6/10

Star Wars The Last Jedi: 6/10

War for the Planet of the Apes: 5/10

Beauty and the Beast: 5/10

Logan: 5/10

Mudbound: 5/10


Unfortunately I missed The Phantom Thread, The Insult, The Greatest Showman and Loving Vincent. I'm planning to watch them as soon as possible What do you think about the ceremony?

Blade runner was the best movie of the year, by far, but its a sci fi, so wont even get a sniff.

There have been 7 sci-fi movies nominated for best picture in the last 9 years. None have yet won, sure, but it's definitely trending that way since there have only ever been like... 12? or so nominated for best picture.

My guess is it will happen within the next 2 or 3 years, tops, assuming a strong release schedule continues.

bodes wrote:
I was sure of all the nominations, except for the best film.

Really? The shape of water was the obvious winner with its 13 nominations and all the positive reviews. Moonlight did a miracle (or maybe a theft ) last year, and a win for 3 Billboards or Call Me By Your Name were possible but certainly not predictable. Dunkirk wasn't among the favorites. Also from a political angle, Del Toro is a mexican but also a very experience director and rewarding Get Out (Black director but basically an outsider) or Lady Bird (Woman director, also an outsider) with the main award would have been too much for the Academy.

The Shape of Water is IMHO the new Revenant. Both Del Toro and Inarritu did much better and never really considered for the main category, I think they both received some sort of "career award" with those movies.