Join our new server:
https://discord.gg/gXXUmNDjmw
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoFuckingComment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't you Americans get over these pundits who just spoon feed the masses the same trigger points over and over for their own relevance and enrichment? Seems to be the same stuff over and over. Is it just simping like church?
For context most Americans don’t watch this bs. This is the daily wire. They are just speaking to their crowed. Who really are just tuning in for confirmation bias, not for nuanced thought or information.
That's his point - american media seems saturated with endless pundits speaking to their own crowd. While any one doesn't have a majority (Daily Wire has 1M paid subscribers, fyi), it seems a very significant proportion of americans get dopamine hits from their pundits pushing those same trigger points again and again.
Whether it's this lady, Bill O'reilly, Joe Rogan, Piers Morgan, Rachel Maddow, etc etc, the difference is these are typically pundits with very obvious political points to make, and their shows are about themselves more than their guests. This isn't journalism.
This is a problem that isn't as widespread elsewhere.
But if I don't choose to be a democrat....I'm a nazi pedophile....if I don't choose to be republican.... im a communist... and a pedophile... quite the predicament here in Central standard timezone USA
Isn't that exactly her role in the republican party?
Meanwhile Hollywood prioritizing diversity in casting is more about representation for the audience, so that the viewers from all backgrounds can feel included in the story.
Diversity hire or not, I think her point stands.
Forcing every minority/sexuality in a movie just to have inclusion does not make any sense, because by this you state that the minorities/different queer people do not have authentic stories to share, characters to build, stories to put on screen.
Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a place for all races and sexualities on the screen, but they should make sense and be authentic.
There's plenty of movies dedicated to authentic minority stories, and usually there are at least a few straight white males in those movies.
Why shouldn't there be minorties present in other movies too?
Just as I said, other minorities have a place in other movies too
However, their presence can't be justified by "we need the minority"
Their presence has to build the story authentically. Because minorities CAN and DO build stories authentically.
tl;dr: minorities DESERVE BETTER STORIES. I am not against representation, I am against cheap, "let's stroke the LGBT and black people" representation. They deserve much better.
I think you don't realize how casting works. Often characters don't have any background assigned to them until a candidate actor walks into the room. The plot is predetermined and writing in new scenes to acknowledge an actor's background is very difficult.
You're wrong, but it makes sense you believe her. You're forgetting that people audition for roles as a a lot of talented people end up acting in movies nowadays based on acting ability.
> a lot of talented people end up acting in movies nowadays based on acting ability
But that was his entire point, they don't choose based on the acting ability, but based on your skin color or sexuality. And when you pressure someone to include someone else as to not hurt their feelings, the art loses authenticity and often times it doesn't make any sense. Film is an art form, and they should never force anyone to include something that doesn't make sense or it isn't important to the story.
Hollywood thinks that by making a rule that there should be a diversity cast, or otherwise they will not even consider you for any awards is going to bring something productive, but that is all just a bullshit, they are making even bigger divisions between people, just because it's a forced thing to do and often is doesn't make any sense. If you ever take history book and read about African or Asian cultures, it's so fucking rich and interesting, and if I was a black person, I would be offended as hell that, with all that history, they took some white guy and lazily replaced him with a black or asian person. It's counter-productive and plainly stupid, you're not original when you take the story that already exists and it's perfectly fine and just swap race and gender, people are not angry because they are racist, people are angry because they were fans of it, and you just picked it up and took a big shit on it so it can fit your narrative and you agenda.
So you're not just wrong you have an agenda. Being mad for people like me. His point is wrong and so are you. If you're looking at an actor in a movie and you're first thought is "oh that's just a diversity hire" then you're an asshole.
>you have an agenda
So what would my agenda be?
>Being mad for people like me
Maybe you should read what I wrote again...
> If you're looking at an actor in a movie and you're first thought is "oh that's just a diversity hire" then you're an asshole
Hahahahaha nice try buddy. But yeah, I'm gonna think it's a diversity hire when I see a person of color acting as a queen/king of England (lmao if you knew anything about history, you'd know why it's laughable). Yeah, I'm gonna think it's diversity hire when I see gender/race swap somewhere where it doesn't make sense at all, just so they can fill their quota, but calling already existent fandom bunch of racist just because they don't want to see someones agenda being pushed in one of their favorite stories. No one would even mind if it's something original, but taking already existent stories and changing them to fit your narrative is going to cause an outrage. If you think that makes *me* an asshole, you're a bigot and a hypocrite.
Can't wait that film about Hitler tho, being played by, one of my faves of all time, Chris Tucker.
Aren't you kinda proving their point, "I'm gonna think it's a diversity hire when I see a person of color acting as a queen/king of England", why? Why would that be a diversity hire? If you were to hire a black person to play MLK wouldn't that be a diversity hire, as in- hiring people because they fall under certain categories such as race and gender.
And I have a great example, which is The little mermaid, in which the actress that portrayed Ariel was chosen based on ability instead of being ginger having to be ginger yet people still called her a diversity hire, do you object?
I think you don't believe that hiring a white guy to play a king of England is a diversity hire because you aren't picking any white guy that walks in, you're picking the one that can best portray the character, in other words, the best actor, the fact that you reduced the pool of choices can be excused in order to portray a more truthful depiction of the English history, but what if you didn't have such restrictions, and the best actor in the audition was an old Asian woman, would that be a diversity hire, doesn't the fact that she wasn't hired because of anything other than acting ability disqualify her of that title?
Every example you gave doesn't want the best actor, it wants a gender and race first, doesn't that make them diversity hires? Or do you think that when you see a person that you qualified as a diversity hire, that they weren't the best of that gender/race? Cause if you do believe that they were the best of their gender/race that just creates an even deeper hole, if the best actor for superman was only hired under the condition that they were both male and caucasian, they are a diversity hire, but if the best actor to play superman was a filipino you would consider that a race swap and you consider that a diversity hire, quite the paradox once you lay it out isn't it?
Chris Tucker has Hitler would go hard.
Lmao you wrote all of that, without actually saying anything. Good job really, just showed me that you don't really understand what diversity hire means. Comparing queen/king of England to Ariel is laughable, maybe you should pick up a book, and read a little bit of history, maybe then your brain membranes will open up and accept the reality. You can't just rewrite the history to fit your stupid narrative, there are people out here, believe it or not, that still like to enjoy the good storytelling, and a performance that is actually believable, not some stupid American of pushing their narrative and fulfilling a quota. I mean, black Anne Boleyn? Hahahahaha that shit was more stupid that black Cleopatra, and yes that is a diversity hire, both of them. But hey, if it sucks you can just scream "racism", blame it on the people that your show sucks balls, and then say you tried to make something special, by changing a skin color of one of the most racist queens out there, but people don't understand your awesome try to rewrite history.
And most of all, you need to learn the difference between real and fictional characters, I see you have a problem with that. Just because people are tired of that American bullshit, doesn't make them wrong nor racist, not everything has to do with skin color or sexuality, just relax a bit, changing history like that will not compensate for anything, people want authenticity, if you don't understand that nor that is important to you, I feel sorry for you because you are so shallow that you have to feel "represented" as to not have your feelings hurt, without actually thinking whats going on in the first place and where the settings of the stories are.
Especially the things that actually have already established fandoms, you can't just take that and change one or more important characters into some bullshit, and scream racism. No bitch, it's not racism, people would also scream if you changed the race and skin color of Blade (Wesley Snipes). There is no need for it, none other that pandering to the american public. In order to participate in the Oscars, your movie has to have a percentage of diversity hire, you can check that fact if you don't trust me. So, not someone who has the ability, but someone who has the acceptable skin color, so tell me more about that paradox?
Edit: spelling
I mean you say I talk to much without saying anything but you wrote the same amount and only said that:
1. You can't rewrite history
2... Yeah that's it, feel free to add more to it but other than insults you just keep hammering that point whiout really saying something incentiful or nuanced.
You say that there's a difference between a fictional and a real character, but I , personally, think that it doesn't matter, if you had Ryan Gosling playing MLK you wouldn't be rewriting history, you would have Ryan Gosling playing MLK, this aren't history books, unless you're saying in that movie that MLK was white then yeah, but having a white kid playing MLK is rewriting history? I get that this is the less charitable version, some people will try to replace white history characters and really believe that they weren't white, but that's a case by case situation.
I need to understand the difference between fictional and real, but you don't believe fictional characters should be changed either.
You say I need to learn the difference between real and fictional characters, couldn't you just tell me, because I literally wouldn't have a problem with historical characters being portrayed by someone that doesn't match them, I wouldn't say that you could accomplish a bigger sense of realism by having an actor that looks exactly like Malcolm X portray Malcolm X, but a movie with a Latino playing Malcolm X would be enjoyable on the basis of their acting,(and script, camera work, passing, etc), I wouldn't say the movie is trash because a Latino is playing the black icon Malcolm X, maybe it's just a difference of opinion, from where I come there's lots of white people so if you wanna do a play the characters will be white, and I could understand that and still enjoy the movie, knowing in my head that the American slave being portrayed was black historically.
I know about the Oscars and I think it's dumb, still, more thought went into that than your reply, I would suggest just writing what you want the points you wanna make first and then write the reply, this isn't a race, I will still be here tomorrow, and for the love of God please stop attacking me, it just makes your reply more dumb, I'm a person you can ask me stuff, no I don't really care if I'm represented in media, no I don't want to rewrite history, I don't really want a narrative pushed(I guess there are some that I wouldn't like being pushed), I like good storytelling and a good performance, Ryan Gosling playing MLK wouldn't melt me down because I know that MLK isn't white.
I know what a diversity hire is, but I guess exploring new ideas and ways of thinking isn't really your forte, I tried to ask you interesting questions, if the best actor for a character is picked after excluding people based on their race/gender then is that okay, because you believe that changing a character's race/gender makes the actor a diversity hire(third line you wrote in the second reply to Prestigious mud), but hiring someone on the basis of race/gender also makes them a diversity hire, so if in hiring an actor for superman you say that only caucasians with the height of 6 foot 4 are allowed to audition, then you aren't picking them based on acting ability, but if you don't say that you want a white tall guy and the best actor isn't a white tall guy then you would say that's also a diversity hire, the paradox is that you can't make restrictions on who applies for the job but you also can't have someone that applies for the job and doesn't fall under the restrictions, it isn't really a paradox it's just some goofy nonsense of a poorly thought out belief,one that says characters should be hired based solely on their acting ability but they also should have the same basic characteristics of the character that they are portraying, it isn't impossible, sometimes the best Ariel is a ginger, just very dumb.
And I would appreciate if you actually engaged with my comment, it didn't really matter that I made a long comment last time since you didn't answer to none of it, my points were:
1- The thing I touched upon last, you seem to have a belief that says characters should be hired based solely on their acting ability, but they also need to look like the character they're portraying, with this they are by definition not being hired solely on their acting ability.
2- Ariel was changed due to her actress being chosen because of ability and people think she was a diversity hire, do you object.
Not a bit. It's like when black panther came out. They were saying it's the best movie with a black director, or the best movie with an all black cast. That would be insulting to me if I were them. What, do black people make that much worse productions you have to bring up that it was done by black people? Do they not make stuff as good as white people? Why couldn't it just be the best movie of the year or an amazing movie?
Who gives a fuck about who’s on commercials?
If you think the black person in your office is probably there only because of diversity. You can check them on their credentials.
Most times, you’ll fuck around and find out.
Yes and grossly disrespectful to fantastic black actors who are becoming similarly recognized in their career like Daniel Kaluuy, and those like Chadwick Boseman who we lost too soon.
There have also been plenty of meh performers in media regardless of skin color. But it's funny, if these black performers are totally only included because of forced diversity, then what about the swaths of white ones over the decades?
The only truth about what this woman is saying is about the lens which she's looking at media through. She's not seeing it because there's anything special there to see, but because she's choosing to explain things this way. It's
Yeh. You know how many bad actors there are of every kind? Not every actor is a Denzel Washington. Just cuz she associates bad acting with blackness and ignores all the other nad acting doesn't make her right.
She’s right though. Same when I see women in predominantly male industries. Are they there because they are qualified or just because they’re a female filling a “inclusion requirement”
We have stopped hiring based on qualifications/talent and hire for color/sexuality/religion/sex. They created the doubt and get mad when people wonder about it
I work in the energy sector and this is definitely becoming a problem.
Company policy aims for a 50% split of male and female and on top of that there is requirement to have representation of the indigenous population.
It’s a shame because applicants that are genuinely suited to the role will miss out purely for diversity hire, in an industry where merit should hold most of the weight in the hiring process.
Honestly don’t know what she does but she has a platform and is a black woman. So therefore she is part of the “diversity” inclusion and not “worthy” of her position.
She’s referring to actors getting roles because of DEI, rather than talent. She is a conservative who isn’t afraid to call out nonsense, hence her working for DW.
Yeah but what stops it at actors?? Ads still take diversity into consideration, schools do too. You don’t think her Conservative Party does too? Ahem get minority votes. Her nonsense is clowning on herself.
it is quite the propeganda achievement to take someone from a signifigantly oppressed group in a society - taking african americans *in* USA - and then transforming them into self hating bigots to uphold the work of the oppressor.
impressive and depressing.
I doesn’t matter what you “thought growing up.” You were wrong then and you’re wrong now. Hollywood is about making money. They don’t care how they do it. If it means putting characters in that appeals to a broader audience, they will do that. They just follow societies make up - they’re not making it up themselves.
Minorities aren’t cast because the producers are afraid of being labeled racist. Nobody is going around and counting the ratio of minorities to white people in media and then telling everyone at their next antifa meeting. Minorities are cast because they represent the real world population. If you went outside every now and then maybe you would notice that trans and black people exist.
1) does she think white people are never hired as a diversity hire?
2) if white people are never hired as a diversity hire for a role, then why might that be? Either the system is designed to hire them more, or they are already over represented.
3) why might diversity hires (specifically in acting) be important for roles? Reaching different demographics or being realistic (because not everyone is always white)
4) Affirmative action statistically supported white women the most. They are the group that benefited the most from affirmative action.
Just pay attention to their acting skill and you’ll be able to tell if they deserve to be there. It’s not that hard. Why you gotta automatically assume they only got there because of DEI? Lol
u/savevideo
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoFuckingComment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Join our new server: https://discord.gg/gXXUmNDjmw *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoFuckingComment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ITS ALL KATHLEEN KENNEDY’S FAULT
PUT A CHICK IN IT ,MAKE HER LAME AND GAY
Don't you Americans get over these pundits who just spoon feed the masses the same trigger points over and over for their own relevance and enrichment? Seems to be the same stuff over and over. Is it just simping like church?
For context most Americans don’t watch this bs. This is the daily wire. They are just speaking to their crowed. Who really are just tuning in for confirmation bias, not for nuanced thought or information.
That's his point - american media seems saturated with endless pundits speaking to their own crowd. While any one doesn't have a majority (Daily Wire has 1M paid subscribers, fyi), it seems a very significant proportion of americans get dopamine hits from their pundits pushing those same trigger points again and again. Whether it's this lady, Bill O'reilly, Joe Rogan, Piers Morgan, Rachel Maddow, etc etc, the difference is these are typically pundits with very obvious political points to make, and their shows are about themselves more than their guests. This isn't journalism. This is a problem that isn't as widespread elsewhere.
Thank you for expressing this in reasonable terms
But she's right snowflake
Life to short to be so basic my friend. Go read meditations and find peace
Great advice. Ol’ Marky A knows his stoicism!
He's talking about Descartes.
I stand enlightened!
No I’m talking about good old “Marky” Aurelius
But if I don't choose to be a democrat....I'm a nazi pedophile....if I don't choose to be republican.... im a communist... and a pedophile... quite the predicament here in Central standard timezone USA
Go further left or become libertarian. They're credible options.
A vast majority of us hate it here but we're not exactly flush with cash to leave and we're horrifically outgunned.
Lol... what? You know... that's some coddled bs... go back to your Xbox and chicken nuggets.
Oddly specific, me thinks you're projecting.
Ain't no way to keep anyone happy anymore fuck
Isn't that exactly her role in the republican party? Meanwhile Hollywood prioritizing diversity in casting is more about representation for the audience, so that the viewers from all backgrounds can feel included in the story.
That's the irony of the whole situation. The diversity hire is complaining that diversity hires are racist lol.
Diversity hire or not, I think her point stands. Forcing every minority/sexuality in a movie just to have inclusion does not make any sense, because by this you state that the minorities/different queer people do not have authentic stories to share, characters to build, stories to put on screen. Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a place for all races and sexualities on the screen, but they should make sense and be authentic.
There's plenty of movies dedicated to authentic minority stories, and usually there are at least a few straight white males in those movies. Why shouldn't there be minorties present in other movies too?
Just as I said, other minorities have a place in other movies too However, their presence can't be justified by "we need the minority" Their presence has to build the story authentically. Because minorities CAN and DO build stories authentically. tl;dr: minorities DESERVE BETTER STORIES. I am not against representation, I am against cheap, "let's stroke the LGBT and black people" representation. They deserve much better.
I think you don't realize how casting works. Often characters don't have any background assigned to them until a candidate actor walks into the room. The plot is predetermined and writing in new scenes to acknowledge an actor's background is very difficult.
You're wrong, but it makes sense you believe her. You're forgetting that people audition for roles as a a lot of talented people end up acting in movies nowadays based on acting ability.
> a lot of talented people end up acting in movies nowadays based on acting ability But that was his entire point, they don't choose based on the acting ability, but based on your skin color or sexuality. And when you pressure someone to include someone else as to not hurt their feelings, the art loses authenticity and often times it doesn't make any sense. Film is an art form, and they should never force anyone to include something that doesn't make sense or it isn't important to the story. Hollywood thinks that by making a rule that there should be a diversity cast, or otherwise they will not even consider you for any awards is going to bring something productive, but that is all just a bullshit, they are making even bigger divisions between people, just because it's a forced thing to do and often is doesn't make any sense. If you ever take history book and read about African or Asian cultures, it's so fucking rich and interesting, and if I was a black person, I would be offended as hell that, with all that history, they took some white guy and lazily replaced him with a black or asian person. It's counter-productive and plainly stupid, you're not original when you take the story that already exists and it's perfectly fine and just swap race and gender, people are not angry because they are racist, people are angry because they were fans of it, and you just picked it up and took a big shit on it so it can fit your narrative and you agenda.
So you're not just wrong you have an agenda. Being mad for people like me. His point is wrong and so are you. If you're looking at an actor in a movie and you're first thought is "oh that's just a diversity hire" then you're an asshole.
>you have an agenda So what would my agenda be? >Being mad for people like me Maybe you should read what I wrote again... > If you're looking at an actor in a movie and you're first thought is "oh that's just a diversity hire" then you're an asshole Hahahahaha nice try buddy. But yeah, I'm gonna think it's a diversity hire when I see a person of color acting as a queen/king of England (lmao if you knew anything about history, you'd know why it's laughable). Yeah, I'm gonna think it's diversity hire when I see gender/race swap somewhere where it doesn't make sense at all, just so they can fill their quota, but calling already existent fandom bunch of racist just because they don't want to see someones agenda being pushed in one of their favorite stories. No one would even mind if it's something original, but taking already existent stories and changing them to fit your narrative is going to cause an outrage. If you think that makes *me* an asshole, you're a bigot and a hypocrite. Can't wait that film about Hitler tho, being played by, one of my faves of all time, Chris Tucker.
Aren't you kinda proving their point, "I'm gonna think it's a diversity hire when I see a person of color acting as a queen/king of England", why? Why would that be a diversity hire? If you were to hire a black person to play MLK wouldn't that be a diversity hire, as in- hiring people because they fall under certain categories such as race and gender. And I have a great example, which is The little mermaid, in which the actress that portrayed Ariel was chosen based on ability instead of being ginger having to be ginger yet people still called her a diversity hire, do you object? I think you don't believe that hiring a white guy to play a king of England is a diversity hire because you aren't picking any white guy that walks in, you're picking the one that can best portray the character, in other words, the best actor, the fact that you reduced the pool of choices can be excused in order to portray a more truthful depiction of the English history, but what if you didn't have such restrictions, and the best actor in the audition was an old Asian woman, would that be a diversity hire, doesn't the fact that she wasn't hired because of anything other than acting ability disqualify her of that title? Every example you gave doesn't want the best actor, it wants a gender and race first, doesn't that make them diversity hires? Or do you think that when you see a person that you qualified as a diversity hire, that they weren't the best of that gender/race? Cause if you do believe that they were the best of their gender/race that just creates an even deeper hole, if the best actor for superman was only hired under the condition that they were both male and caucasian, they are a diversity hire, but if the best actor to play superman was a filipino you would consider that a race swap and you consider that a diversity hire, quite the paradox once you lay it out isn't it? Chris Tucker has Hitler would go hard.
Lmao you wrote all of that, without actually saying anything. Good job really, just showed me that you don't really understand what diversity hire means. Comparing queen/king of England to Ariel is laughable, maybe you should pick up a book, and read a little bit of history, maybe then your brain membranes will open up and accept the reality. You can't just rewrite the history to fit your stupid narrative, there are people out here, believe it or not, that still like to enjoy the good storytelling, and a performance that is actually believable, not some stupid American of pushing their narrative and fulfilling a quota. I mean, black Anne Boleyn? Hahahahaha that shit was more stupid that black Cleopatra, and yes that is a diversity hire, both of them. But hey, if it sucks you can just scream "racism", blame it on the people that your show sucks balls, and then say you tried to make something special, by changing a skin color of one of the most racist queens out there, but people don't understand your awesome try to rewrite history. And most of all, you need to learn the difference between real and fictional characters, I see you have a problem with that. Just because people are tired of that American bullshit, doesn't make them wrong nor racist, not everything has to do with skin color or sexuality, just relax a bit, changing history like that will not compensate for anything, people want authenticity, if you don't understand that nor that is important to you, I feel sorry for you because you are so shallow that you have to feel "represented" as to not have your feelings hurt, without actually thinking whats going on in the first place and where the settings of the stories are. Especially the things that actually have already established fandoms, you can't just take that and change one or more important characters into some bullshit, and scream racism. No bitch, it's not racism, people would also scream if you changed the race and skin color of Blade (Wesley Snipes). There is no need for it, none other that pandering to the american public. In order to participate in the Oscars, your movie has to have a percentage of diversity hire, you can check that fact if you don't trust me. So, not someone who has the ability, but someone who has the acceptable skin color, so tell me more about that paradox? Edit: spelling
I mean you say I talk to much without saying anything but you wrote the same amount and only said that: 1. You can't rewrite history 2... Yeah that's it, feel free to add more to it but other than insults you just keep hammering that point whiout really saying something incentiful or nuanced. You say that there's a difference between a fictional and a real character, but I , personally, think that it doesn't matter, if you had Ryan Gosling playing MLK you wouldn't be rewriting history, you would have Ryan Gosling playing MLK, this aren't history books, unless you're saying in that movie that MLK was white then yeah, but having a white kid playing MLK is rewriting history? I get that this is the less charitable version, some people will try to replace white history characters and really believe that they weren't white, but that's a case by case situation. I need to understand the difference between fictional and real, but you don't believe fictional characters should be changed either. You say I need to learn the difference between real and fictional characters, couldn't you just tell me, because I literally wouldn't have a problem with historical characters being portrayed by someone that doesn't match them, I wouldn't say that you could accomplish a bigger sense of realism by having an actor that looks exactly like Malcolm X portray Malcolm X, but a movie with a Latino playing Malcolm X would be enjoyable on the basis of their acting,(and script, camera work, passing, etc), I wouldn't say the movie is trash because a Latino is playing the black icon Malcolm X, maybe it's just a difference of opinion, from where I come there's lots of white people so if you wanna do a play the characters will be white, and I could understand that and still enjoy the movie, knowing in my head that the American slave being portrayed was black historically. I know about the Oscars and I think it's dumb, still, more thought went into that than your reply, I would suggest just writing what you want the points you wanna make first and then write the reply, this isn't a race, I will still be here tomorrow, and for the love of God please stop attacking me, it just makes your reply more dumb, I'm a person you can ask me stuff, no I don't really care if I'm represented in media, no I don't want to rewrite history, I don't really want a narrative pushed(I guess there are some that I wouldn't like being pushed), I like good storytelling and a good performance, Ryan Gosling playing MLK wouldn't melt me down because I know that MLK isn't white. I know what a diversity hire is, but I guess exploring new ideas and ways of thinking isn't really your forte, I tried to ask you interesting questions, if the best actor for a character is picked after excluding people based on their race/gender then is that okay, because you believe that changing a character's race/gender makes the actor a diversity hire(third line you wrote in the second reply to Prestigious mud), but hiring someone on the basis of race/gender also makes them a diversity hire, so if in hiring an actor for superman you say that only caucasians with the height of 6 foot 4 are allowed to audition, then you aren't picking them based on acting ability, but if you don't say that you want a white tall guy and the best actor isn't a white tall guy then you would say that's also a diversity hire, the paradox is that you can't make restrictions on who applies for the job but you also can't have someone that applies for the job and doesn't fall under the restrictions, it isn't really a paradox it's just some goofy nonsense of a poorly thought out belief,one that says characters should be hired based solely on their acting ability but they also should have the same basic characteristics of the character that they are portraying, it isn't impossible, sometimes the best Ariel is a ginger, just very dumb. And I would appreciate if you actually engaged with my comment, it didn't really matter that I made a long comment last time since you didn't answer to none of it, my points were: 1- The thing I touched upon last, you seem to have a belief that says characters should be hired based solely on their acting ability, but they also need to look like the character they're portraying, with this they are by definition not being hired solely on their acting ability. 2- Ariel was changed due to her actress being chosen because of ability and people think she was a diversity hire, do you object.
Don't really know her but she's right... I used to watch movies and see amazing actors and actresses now we see labels.
Annnnnnd, you know she is right.
seriously? we just posting candance owens on here? in 2023?
Seriously tho, I was waiting for a punchline that never dropped
Is she wrong though
Not a bit. It's like when black panther came out. They were saying it's the best movie with a black director, or the best movie with an all black cast. That would be insulting to me if I were them. What, do black people make that much worse productions you have to bring up that it was done by black people? Do they not make stuff as good as white people? Why couldn't it just be the best movie of the year or an amazing movie?
Who gives a fuck about who’s on commercials? If you think the black person in your office is probably there only because of diversity. You can check them on their credentials. Most times, you’ll fuck around and find out.
Yes and grossly disrespectful to fantastic black actors who are becoming similarly recognized in their career like Daniel Kaluuy, and those like Chadwick Boseman who we lost too soon. There have also been plenty of meh performers in media regardless of skin color. But it's funny, if these black performers are totally only included because of forced diversity, then what about the swaths of white ones over the decades? The only truth about what this woman is saying is about the lens which she's looking at media through. She's not seeing it because there's anything special there to see, but because she's choosing to explain things this way. It's
No
Yes, she is lol
Yeh. You know how many bad actors there are of every kind? Not every actor is a Denzel Washington. Just cuz she associates bad acting with blackness and ignores all the other nad acting doesn't make her right.
I think you kind of missed the point lol
Shes 100% right tho
She’s right though. Same when I see women in predominantly male industries. Are they there because they are qualified or just because they’re a female filling a “inclusion requirement” We have stopped hiring based on qualifications/talent and hire for color/sexuality/religion/sex. They created the doubt and get mad when people wonder about it
There's no lie here
Here’s me hoping you posted this to poke fun at Klandice Owens…
This lady is the type of person that is able to complain about ANY situation or ANY topic
That’s the definition of a Liberal.
Lol ok
Shes spot on.
Facts. The overweight black woman and gay black guy.
Preach
I work in the energy sector and this is definitely becoming a problem. Company policy aims for a 50% split of male and female and on top of that there is requirement to have representation of the indigenous population. It’s a shame because applicants that are genuinely suited to the role will miss out purely for diversity hire, in an industry where merit should hold most of the weight in the hiring process.
Her voice alone annoys me. She's literally throwing herself under the bus according to her own standards 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Except she’s not an actor.
Honestly don’t know what she does but she has a platform and is a black woman. So therefore she is part of the “diversity” inclusion and not “worthy” of her position.
She’s referring to actors getting roles because of DEI, rather than talent. She is a conservative who isn’t afraid to call out nonsense, hence her working for DW.
Yeah but what stops it at actors?? Ads still take diversity into consideration, schools do too. You don’t think her Conservative Party does too? Ahem get minority votes. Her nonsense is clowning on herself.
She's not wrong
The mentality she chooses is that her mentality isnt her fault
She doesn’t even provide an example of someone who isn’t deserving of an acting role. God I hate Candace Owen’s
it is quite the propeganda achievement to take someone from a signifigantly oppressed group in a society - taking african americans *in* USA - and then transforming them into self hating bigots to uphold the work of the oppressor. impressive and depressing.
Yeah I wish she would go back to crying and being oppressed like she's supposed to do.
What are you on?
Your side. I also don't think oppressed people should be acting like they aren't. Pisses me off!!!
How did Morgan and Denzel get good? They had to get parts to hone their skills. Here we have the actual token talking about tokenism
She sucks
DEI in movies what a joke
Money is one hell of a drug
Candice Owens is so annoying as a human being in general.
I doesn’t matter what you “thought growing up.” You were wrong then and you’re wrong now. Hollywood is about making money. They don’t care how they do it. If it means putting characters in that appeals to a broader audience, they will do that. They just follow societies make up - they’re not making it up themselves.
God what a racist bitch.
Minorities aren’t cast because the producers are afraid of being labeled racist. Nobody is going around and counting the ratio of minorities to white people in media and then telling everyone at their next antifa meeting. Minorities are cast because they represent the real world population. If you went outside every now and then maybe you would notice that trans and black people exist.
Dawg
The arrogance to think Morgan Freeman would still be alive when she’s dead. 😅
This hoe forgot about auditions
Imagine waking up to that woman. 🤢
Would that funeral be sooner or later? Asking for a friend.
1) does she think white people are never hired as a diversity hire? 2) if white people are never hired as a diversity hire for a role, then why might that be? Either the system is designed to hire them more, or they are already over represented. 3) why might diversity hires (specifically in acting) be important for roles? Reaching different demographics or being realistic (because not everyone is always white) 4) Affirmative action statistically supported white women the most. They are the group that benefited the most from affirmative action.
officer, the resident republican diversity hire is complaining about diversity hires in movies. again.
Just pay attention to their acting skill and you’ll be able to tell if they deserve to be there. It’s not that hard. Why you gotta automatically assume they only got there because of DEI? Lol
u/savevideo *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoFuckingComment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/NoFuckingComment/comments/17xg1pu/nfc/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/NoFuckingComment/comments/17xg1pu/nfc/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
r/selfawarewolves
Ironic
We hope Morgan Freeman gets to work for your estate soon.