NATION

PASSWORD

Hetero White Males underrepresented on British TV

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Hetero White Males underrepresented on British TV

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:07 pm

Ethnic minorities and gay people are significantly over-represented on British television, according to a new study. Black and ethnic minority (BAME) people account for about 13 per cent of the national workforce but secure 23 per cent of on-screen role, the statistics show.
Over-representation is particularly stark on drama programmes where ethnic minority actors win more than a quarter (26.4 per cent) of parts, as well as children’s TV (30.3 per cent) and comedies (24.9 per cent). Lesbian, gay and bisexual people nearly twice as likely to appear on television – where they take 11.9 per cent of roles – than would be expected by their estimated 6,4 per cent share of the national population. The figures come after the head of BBC drama defended its practice of crowbarring diverse characters and plot lines into adaptations of classic novels, in an attempt to reflect the demographics of modern Britain. Critics have accused the corporation of pushing “woke propaganda”.
The latest study indicates that broadcasters and producers are promoting actors and presenters of diverse backgrounds to on-screen roles while failing to fully address off-screen diversity problems, especially at senior levels.
Ethnic minorities are still significantly underrepresented as directors, screenwriters and series producers, the research shows.
The latest annual Diamond Survey by the Creative Diversity Network is based on data supplied by 30,000 TV productions made for the five major UK broadcasters: the BB, ITV, C4, C5 and Sky.
Submissions are voluntary but the organisers believe that the survey offers an accurate picture of the industry’s diversity.
Older people and the disabled are the most underrepresented minority groups. Over-50s account for 20.6 per cent of on-screen contributions but make up nearly a third (31 per cent) of the workforce, while disabled people get 7.8 per cent of on-screen jobs and 5.2 per cent of off-screen, despite being 17 per cent of the population.
Deborah Williams, executive director of the Creative Diversity Network, said that it was disappointing that disability representation had “flatlined” in recent years.
She suggested that BAME presenters and actors were so over-represented because improving on-screen diversity had traditionally been seen as a “quick win”.
“So much time is spend on quick wins, that digging deeper hasn’t necessarily been a priority,” she said. “The easiest thing to do, and everyone is guilty is this whether in television or other industries, is to find a black person and put them on.”
Women are slightly over-represented in both on-screen (52.4 per cent) and off-screen (53.7 per cent) roles. The data covers programmes broadcast from August 2018 to July 2019.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gays ... -n7xcqftgz

I'll offer a comment to here in line with the "Socialism is when the government does things and the more things it does the socialister it is." to explain this phenomanae in the UK over the last couple of years; "Historical accuracy is when you put black people on TV shows during any time period, and the more black people you have the more historically accurate it is.".
Several productions have defended the decision to include minorities on the grounds of inclusivity and rejected complaints of accuracy over the years, leading to these outcomes. Notably Doctor Who producers have basically made British History a multiracial affair to the extent that, as the stats note, it's portrayed as far more mixed race than even the modern era is. You know, like cultural appropriation or something.

There's also the phenomanae of mixed race families on TV during advertisements to try and chase woke status.

The backlash against white people winning BAFTAs and other such tantrums from the progressive left over the last few decades has also contributed to this as shows feel the need to avoid these controversies.

Another inequality being ignored here is that the portrayals of white males aren't done in a way that is in line with the demands of what the white male population wants to see and how they want to be represented, which is an aspect of the push by the progressive left to include more "Posiitive portrayal" of the groups they represent. I'm reminded of the YouGov poll indicating white males were the most disliked population in the UK.

The statistics provide another example of progressives overshooting their agenda and the eventual result being inequality that disadvantages whites and males, and highlights another issue where organizations representing whites and males is necessary.

It's worth noting that the percentage of the population who endorse the progressive lefts intersectional ideology is nowhere near a majority either. They have simply infiltrated and gatekept institutions to produce these outcomes, and the result is our television seems like it comes from an alternative universe, where the values are alien and the cast is not representative of reality.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Albrenia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9974
Founded: Aug 18, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Albrenia » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:17 pm

As much as the shoehorning of 'diverse' characters into everything for the sake of Diversity can be a little on-the-nose in a general sense, I'm not actually particularly bothered as long as they make sure the characters are actually well-rounded. For example the new Lost In Space series which I liked had one of the Robinson family be mixed-race and made Dr.Smith a woman, but I didn't care at all because the story and characters were still quality to me.

I still see plenty of representation of white males on TV here in Australia though.
Last edited by Albrenia on Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LRON
Diplomat
 
Posts: 572
Founded: Jan 20, 2020
Corporate Police State

Postby LRON » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:31 pm

That is because the media and culture are so focused on just a few metropolitan areas such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc. They forget that the demographics of these cities do not reflect the demographics of the nation.
Ravenous, ridiculous, and rakish!
Political fixer turned novelist.
Upper Class Anglo-Indian.
Proud Tory, but no longer a member of the Conservative Party.
Enthusiastically eccentric.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Thu Feb 27, 2020 11:34 pm

Albrenia wrote:As much as the shoehorning of 'diverse' characters into everything for the sake of Diversity can be a little on-the-nose in a general sense, I'm not actually particularly bothered as long as they make sure the characters are actually well-rounded. For example the new Lost In Space series which I liked had one of the Robinson family be mixed-race and made Dr.Smith a woman, but I didn't care at all because the story and characters were still quality to me.

I still see plenty of representation of white males on TV here in Australia though.


The issue is that the justification to do this is the opposite of true in that it doesnt actually help reflect the demographics of the country, quite the opposite, and that furthermore the roles given to minority characters and white characters differ in quality of representation. Furthermore it gives an outsized cultural presence to minorities and underrepresents whites which has implications for the issues raised by our programming and how much of an issue they seem for society.

It also leads to hostility from the media against protest movements like John Snows comment that had "Never seen so many white people" at a Brexit rally. (As others noted, the remainer rally was also almost entirely white, but did not receive the same kind of gaslighting criticism. It is reserved for causes progressives dont like because it isnt sincere concern over representation, but a psychological technique to unsettle opposition. That it normalized and relies on contempt and hostility for whites is ignored)

It also probably contributes to public overestimating of the scale of mass migration.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:00 am

LRON wrote:That is because the media and culture are so focused on just a few metropolitan areas such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc. They forget that the demographics of these cities do not reflect the demographics of the nation.


Even shows set rurally face the issue.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Nobel Hobos 2
Minister
 
Posts: 3039
Founded: Dec 04, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Nobel Hobos 2 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:02 am

In the quoted article it's noted that racial minorities are over-represented, but NOT that white males are underrepresented. The missing data is whether white FEMALES are over or under represented.

I'm sure there's more sources. Ostro doesn't start a thread with only one source to offer.
Also, AiliAiliA
No footwear industry: citizens cannot afford new shoes.
High rate of Nobel prizes and other academic achievements.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:04 am

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:In the quoted article it's noted that racial minorities are over-represented, but NOT that white males are underrepresented. The missing data is whether white FEMALES are over or under represented.

I'm sure there's more sources. Ostro doesn't start a thread with only one source to offer.


The article notes women are also overrepresented.

Pink news also covers it and the journalist who broke the news notes that statistically the worst career prospects are for white heterosexual men. However it is verbotten to acknowledge male or white disadvantage, so instead it is framed around minorities, women, and gay people.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Nobel Hobos 2
Minister
 
Posts: 3039
Founded: Dec 04, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Nobel Hobos 2 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:09 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:In the quoted article it's noted that racial minorities are over-represented, but NOT that white males are underrepresented. The missing data is whether white FEMALES are over or under represented.

I'm sure there's more sources. Ostro doesn't start a thread with only one source to offer.


The article notes women are also overrepresented.

Pink news also covers it and the study author notes that statistically the worst career prospects are for white heterosexual men.


Since that's actually essential to connect what you quoted to what you claimed, how about quoting some more of the Times.

The Times is behind a paywall for most of us.
Also, AiliAiliA
No footwear industry: citizens cannot afford new shoes.
High rate of Nobel prizes and other academic achievements.

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43065
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:13 am

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
The article notes women are also overrepresented.

Pink news also covers it and the study author notes that statistically the worst career prospects are for white heterosexual men.


Since that's actually essential to connect what you quoted to what you claimed, how about quoting some more of the Times.

The Times is behind a paywall for most of us.


Pro-tip, just load the page in the internet archive to get around paywalls.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:13 am

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
The article notes women are also overrepresented.

Pink news also covers it and the study author notes that statistically the worst career prospects are for white heterosexual men.


Since that's actually essential to connect what you quoted to what you claimed, how about quoting some more of the Times.

The Times is behind a paywall for most of us.


It's not actually essential. A study showing 25% of homeless people are women also shows 75% are men even if that's not how they phrase those findings. The white male disadvantage can be demonstrated with the data available to you.

Here you go
https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinDaubne ... sity-tv%2F

Here
https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinDaubne ... sity-tv%2F
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 18533
Founded: Feb 20, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:14 am

I don’t see a problem.
The name's James. James Usari. Well, my name is not actually James Usari, so don't bother actually looking it up, but it'll do for now.

Lack of a real name means compensation through a real face. My debt is settled


Part-time Kebab tycoon in Glasgow.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:18 am

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:I don’t see a problem.


The issue is that it negatively impacts the careers of actors based on their race, that it creates outsized cultural influence and depictions of particular issues versus other ones, and that the roles for minorities and women have also been cherry picked and adhere to the standards representatives of those groups want for positive portrayals while white male roles haven't, leading to the whole "every villain is an evil white man" problem. Further it creates a distorted view of the extent of mass migration, and a few other problems.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 18533
Founded: Feb 20, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:41 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:I don’t see a problem.


The issue is that it negatively impacts the careers of actors based on their race, that it creates outsized cultural influence and depictions of particular issues versus other ones, and that the roles for minorities and women have also been cherry picked and adhere to the standards representatives of those groups want for positive portrayals while white male roles haven't, leading to the whole "every villain is an evil white man" problem. Further it creates a distorted view of the extent of mass migration, and a few other problems.

First of all: you made those up to be mad about diversity. Those are not real problems. No-one is turning away white people because they are white. Your views force you to believe that British TV, dominated by white men, is somehow averse to white men.

I do have two questions:

1. Why are you only worried about this ‘problem’ when it concerns white males, but not when the same thing happens to minorities?
2. Why do you make up these convoluted, unsupported theories about something just to make yourself mad?
The name's James. James Usari. Well, my name is not actually James Usari, so don't bother actually looking it up, but it'll do for now.

Lack of a real name means compensation through a real face. My debt is settled


Part-time Kebab tycoon in Glasgow.

User avatar
Radiatia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7814
Founded: Oct 25, 2011
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Radiatia » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:52 am

My position on this is very much the same as my position whenever someone says "X group is underrepresented": I don't care about skin colour, gender or background, if you can do the role and you are the best based on merit you should have the role.

Of course, I'd like to emphasise the phrase based on merit.

There's absolutely no denying that most British televisions channels (such as the BBC, or worse: Channel 4) have a certain agenda they want to push and they are pushing that agenda with a vehemence that is at times ridiculous to the point of being beyond satire.

In their defence, although I'm totally opposed to so-called 'positive discrimination' I can at least understand the desire to represent under-represented groups on television; the irony of course is that British TV now only tends to represent the values and demography of London, rather than all of Britain - and it does a bad job at that.

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58539
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Liriena » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:53 am

I can kinda see some of this being cause for concern when it has a negative impact on the historical accuracy of TV series conceived as historical (although I would personally exclude Shakespeare adaptations from that category and, thus, those concerns, on account that Shakespeare himself was not very meticulous about historical accuracy either).

Can't find it in me to be concerned by the "overrepresentation" of LGBT people, on the other hand.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:53 am

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
The issue is that it negatively impacts the careers of actors based on their race, that it creates outsized cultural influence and depictions of particular issues versus other ones, and that the roles for minorities and women have also been cherry picked and adhere to the standards representatives of those groups want for positive portrayals while white male roles haven't, leading to the whole "every villain is an evil white man" problem. Further it creates a distorted view of the extent of mass migration, and a few other problems.

First of all: you made those up to be mad about diversity. Those are not real problems. No-one is turning away white people because they are white. Your views force you to believe that British TV, dominated by white men, is somehow averse to white men.

I do have two questions:

1. Why are you only worried about this ‘problem’ when it concerns white males, but not when the same thing happens to minorities?
2. Why do you make up these convoluted, unsupported theories about something just to make yourself mad?


I didnt make those up. They are restating the arguments for diversity. The only new contribution is the cherry picked roles and villainizatoj argument.
Roles for white males are not being written at a rate that gives them equal opportunities.

You're projecting your own flaws into me here.
Your views force you to ignore the stats showing tv is not dominated by white men because you believe woke nonsense.

As for your two questions they appear to be more projection.
I have spoken before about the need for representations of women and minorities and so on for largely the same reasons. So a better question is, why are you concerned when this happens to minorities but not white males?

The second point is just younlashing out at me pointing out the negative impact on white males of this situation. You call them convoluted, but they are precisely the arguments that were used to argue for inclusion before. Why suddenly do you find them incoherent when applied to white males?
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Nuroblav
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Nov 13, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Nuroblav » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:56 am

Yeah I noticed that a lot in the last series of Doctor Who, but I'm pretty sure they've fired them anyway.

It is as you say very annoying, but as Albrenia said, as long as they're good at it I don't see a problem. But yeah, just let it run its course and not tamper with casting for 'diversity''s sake.
Anarcho-Communist, metalhead and all-round...err...human

Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

0% Capitalism and Conservatism

Alignment: Chaotic Neutral

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:58 am

Liriena wrote:I can kinda see some of this being cause for concern when it has a negative impact on the historical accuracy of TV series conceived as historical (although I would personally exclude Shakespeare adaptations from that category and, thus, those concerns, on account that Shakespeare himself was not very meticulous about historical accuracy either).

Can't find it in me to be concerned by the "overrepresentation" of LGBT people, on the other hand.


Having multiple dramas analyze the problems of the black community and giving them an outsized presence in the cultural zeigeist while underr3presenting white issues is also a problem that arises. There is also the fact that roles are not being written for white male actors at a rate that provides them equal opportunities. Some other stuff too.

Similarly the problems in hetero relationships is underrepresented despite being more relevant to more people.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Great Franconia and Verana
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5531
Founded: Apr 21, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Great Franconia and Verana » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:00 am

Unless the film or show is trying to be a highly accurate depiction of history, I do not have a problem with this.

I mean, if anyone is seriously getting their historical facts from Dr. Who, or Shakespeare, then I think they may be a lost cause anyways. Most films have bent history for decades, changing the facts for entertainment value. Why not change up some of the characters too?
Canadian from Vancouver
Social Liberal, Internationalist, Atheist
Biden/Baldwin 2020
Current 2020 Presidential Predictions (March 16th, 2020)
Current 2020 Senate Predictions (March 16th, 2020

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:02 am

Nuroblav wrote:Yeah I noticed that a lot in the last series of Doctor Who, but I'm pretty sure they've fired them anyway.

It is as you say very annoying, but as Albrenia said, as long as they're good at it I don't see a problem. But yeah, just let it run its course and not tamper with casting for 'diversity''s sake.


The Agenda pushing and hostility to white males alongside the gaslighting that occurs when this topic and double standards is discussed also leads people to believe the conspiracy theories offered by the far right are plausible, as they are the only faction acknowledging it and providing an explanation.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:02 am

Great Franconia and Verana wrote:Unless the film or show is trying to be a highly accurate depiction of history, I do not have a problem with this.

I mean, if anyone is seriously getting their historical facts from Dr. Who, or Shakespeare, then I think they may be a lost cause anyways. Most films have bent history for decades, changing the facts for entertainment value. Why not change up some of the characters too?


Should white actors have less opportunities than minority actors?
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Great Franconia and Verana
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5531
Founded: Apr 21, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Great Franconia and Verana » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:08 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Great Franconia and Verana wrote:Unless the film or show is trying to be a highly accurate depiction of history, I do not have a problem with this.

I mean, if anyone is seriously getting their historical facts from Dr. Who, or Shakespeare, then I think they may be a lost cause anyways. Most films have bent history for decades, changing the facts for entertainment value. Why not change up some of the characters too?


Should white actors have less opportunities than minority actors?

I mean I do not know what you are expecting. Should there be a quota for shows based on ethnicity, to ensure equal acting status for all? Should there be guidelines for exactly how much TV time should be devoted to certain demographics?

Obviously thats nonsense.

For decades TV was dominated by white men. Now, we see more people of colour on our screens. Inequalities ebb and flow, especially in the arts, as different modes and stories are highlighted. At this juncture, it appears that certain stories, female, minority stories, are in vogue. Get used to it.

Rather than couch your argument in this strange faux-concern about the employment prospects of white actors just say what you really mean.
Last edited by Great Franconia and Verana on Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Canadian from Vancouver
Social Liberal, Internationalist, Atheist
Biden/Baldwin 2020
Current 2020 Presidential Predictions (March 16th, 2020)
Current 2020 Senate Predictions (March 16th, 2020

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:10 am

Another way this trend is toxic;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -remainers

Basically, the BBCs progressive hysteria may have contributed to Brexiteers winning the debate because the BBC focused on finding "Diverse" representation for the sides rather than actually representing the publics positions.

Because they just had to have a black woman they would pass over dozens of white commentators for a center ground opinion, find a rabid remainer who was black and put them on instead without considering the views they represented rather than their side of a polarized political discussion and whether they were the right sex and colour.

a week, these grid meetings often descended into the sort of charade that certain rightwing columnists dream about. One notable incident came when in order to find an “authentic” northern voice, all plausible interviewees who displayed any obvious erudition were vetoed. In their place, newspaper owner Danny Lockwood was slotted into the identity sudoku, as his tone was seen to more directly signal his real northern identity. Several producers thought fit to mention that said individual was, in fact, a reactionary whose past achievements include mocking the “Zorro” outfits worn by some Muslim women. But the grids didn’t have any disqualifying categories
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53397
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:11 am

Great Franconia and Verana wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Should white actors have less opportunities than minority actors?

I mean I do not know what you are expecting. Should there be a quota for shows based on ethnicity, to ensure equal acting status for all? Should there be guidelines for exactly how much TV time should be devoted to certain demographics?

Obviously thats nonsense.

For decades TV was dominated by white men. Now, we see more people of colour on our screens. Inequalities ebb and flow, especially in the arts, as different modes and stories are highlighted. At this juncture, it appears that certain stories, female, minority stories, are in vogue. Get used to it.

Rather than couch your argument in this strange faux-concern about the employment prospects of white actors just say what you really mean.


It's not faux concern.

I dont think quotas are necessary. Merely acknowledging more roles need to be written and encouraging people to do it in a similar manner to how it was encouraged for minorities and women.
New Sig, who dis?
Patriarchy theory is a valid academic theory, not incel tier psychological abuse which maps on to any situation a woman doesn't like and enables them to rationalize a hostility to men, we swear.
https://i.redd.it/zj1a11ooxwb31.jpg

User avatar
Great Franconia and Verana
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5531
Founded: Apr 21, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Great Franconia and Verana » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:15 am

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Great Franconia and Verana wrote:I mean I do not know what you are expecting. Should there be a quota for shows based on ethnicity, to ensure equal acting status for all? Should there be guidelines for exactly how much TV time should be devoted to certain demographics?

Obviously thats nonsense.

For decades TV was dominated by white men. Now, we see more people of colour on our screens. Inequalities ebb and flow, especially in the arts, as different modes and stories are highlighted. At this juncture, it appears that certain stories, female, minority stories, are in vogue. Get used to it.

Rather than couch your argument in this strange faux-concern about the employment prospects of white actors just say what you really mean.


It's not faux concern.

I dont think quotas are necessary. Merely acknowledging more roles need to be written and encouraging people to do it in a similar manner to how it was encouraged for minorities and women.


Why?

We have seen literally hundreds of thousands of stories told from the perspective of the white, heterosexual male. A vast majority of our art, novels, movies, and TV shows are from that perspective. It is really, really, really easy for someone to go online, and find a story centered on a white, heterosexual male. Why boost the creation of something we have veritable treasure trove of already?

Honestly, this kind of nonsense is why the anti-SJW's are just as bad as the people they are fighting against. Making mountains out of molehills on every niggling issue.
Canadian from Vancouver
Social Liberal, Internationalist, Atheist
Biden/Baldwin 2020
Current 2020 Presidential Predictions (March 16th, 2020)
Current 2020 Senate Predictions (March 16th, 2020

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Albrenia, Cannot think of a name, Eahland, Giovenith, Graag Brom, Jinwoy, Kargintina the Third, Luminesa, Plzen, Southern-Aves, Surrealist Patagonia, Telconi, The Alma Mater, United Muscovite Nations

Advertisement

Remove ads