ScoutingForToys
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,519
- Reaction score
- 2,353
All of us agreeing that this approach to the movie is divisive and just hurts everyone in the long run is giving me the warm and fuzzies.
Somehow Rey Returned
- Thread starter chrisstbh
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
There actually IS something wrong with ‘equity’ because it’s replaced merit as the determining factor for who is getting hired.
Merit should always be the primary factor. Trying to engineer ‘equity’ into the equation just doesn’t work. Hire the best people for the particular project regardless of colour or sex and let the ‘diversity’ chips fall where they may.
And what if some people don't get a fair shot? There needs to be equity in opportunity.
"Merit should always be the primary factor." Equity levels the playing field so that merit can be the primary factor.
Last edited:
I'm playing devil's advocate only because this response occurred to me, but I'm very much torn on the whole issue really.
Say you have a kid with a bionic leg who can kick 100 yard field goals. The 'merit' is there, so do we cast aside all the natural talent who just can't obtain a bionic leg for whatever reason. The real world says 'yes'. Winning is everything. But in that world, you end up with a lot of disenfranchised people. Like we have now. And sooner or later, that pool gets very, very large. [see French Revolution]
The idea that everyone will get a “fair” shot is utopian thinking. Life isn’t fair because people are inherently unequal. Even the same person is unequal when measured against themselves at different points in their life.
The problem comes when some people think they can engineer “fairness”.
This is impossible and incredibly arrogant. What makes these people think they are wise enough to make these decisions? By trying to bean count along certain characteristics (sex, race, sexual preference, etc..) they are ignoring a myriad of other countless characteristics.
The truth is the smallest minority is the individual because everyone is unique. Lumping people into groups in the name of equality ignores this.
Lets just throw out all laws and regulations then and its dog eat dog because life isn't fair anyways and people aren't always nice so let it just be kill or be killed because people.
Forget the wheelchair ramps. Life isn't fair, your legs don't work so it's tough, you're not getting in this building.
I do believe this is the biggest problem. It's an impossible formula to figure out.
But as we merge with the machine, we will become more similar over time. The ultimate destiny for Man, and why we fear it so, is to be assimilated into the equality of the Oneness.
Strangely, people love that same belief system when it involves "God".
There are a great many people who feel that way. And they actively show their resentment.
We already have this. This is how the world works. There will always be a hierarchy because the idea that everyone is “equal” is not based in reality.
Not everyone can kick field goals. The people who can kick field goals the most consistenatly will naturally rise to the top and be able to play at the highest level. Introducing bionic legs will not change this dynamic because even if everyone had a bionic leg there would still be those who were better than others.
And ironically no where is this more obvious than in sport. Teams do not have ‘equity’ requirements. It’s almost entirely based on merit. No one is demanding more Asian players for “diverse representation” in the NBA or NFL because they understand the consequences when everything is based on winning.
Random_Retard
Super Freak
Let's be frank. When was it ever like that?
Doesn't really matter what we're talking about (film industry, politics or any company) quite often it's the people with the best connections, the best bootlicker or simply the one who can offer the best bribe who gets the good jobs, positions or commissions.
The world has always been like that. And that might be one of the reasons so many things around us go so horribly wrong...
If they're allowed to. If there are social factors not letting them get to try outs they'll never get spotted. That's where the equity comes in. Level the playing field as best as you can, give everyone a chance who wants to.
This has F all to do with Rey Skywalker so this will be it from me.
It's true. And people will always hate it.
You’re muddying the waters. Accommodating people to live their lives more fully is not the same as hiring someone based primarily on certain characteristics, especially if there are better candidates.
And even accommodating people has it‘s limits. It doesn’t make sense nor is it feasible to add wheelchair ramps everywhere.
JacktheRipper
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,735
- Reaction score
- 1,026
I found this hilarious. Thank you for the laugh.
I'll just push this guy's chair out of the way. I ain't got time for him to figure out how he's getting into the building. I've got working legs.
If there wasn't a push for equity in the 60's, certain groups of people still wouldn't be able to vote and a bunch of other things. Tell those people to 'suck it up, life isn't fair.'
There are always other factors besides merit but the most successful ventures did actually focus on it.
And if you want proof it was a better system just look at Disney where they’re now actively trying to engineer ‘equity’ and the disastrous results of their efforts..
You’re confusing ‘equity’ with equal rights.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,219
- Reaction score
- 358
You keep making this into a merit thing and implying they are giving these artistic opportunities to less deserving people due to their gender or skin color. Who is going to make the best movie, or write the best script, or act the best are not measurable pieces of data. You don't have a bunch of directors take a standardized test than hire the person who got the highest score. The best directors, writers, actors on earth make movies that financially bomb constantly. You can use the history of these creatives as one variable to measure- this actor on average brings in this much money, this director on average brings in this much money, etc. This is already happening, but due to the inconsistent nature of how complicated it is to make a successful movie there is no clean process to guarantee success. There is a tiny handful of creatives that you can truly bank on to give you a hit, and Christopher Nolan can't make every single movie. Sometimes huge established artists make hits, sometimes they are financial disasters, sometimes relative newcomers make hits, sometimes they make bombs. The truth of the industry is there are hundreds of people in any of these disciplines, directors, actors, writers, etc that are all relatively equally talented and it just comes down to a few people at the top of the company following their gut. It's subjective opportunity. I'm friends with this person who is friends with this person, I personally like this persons work, I personally would want to see this movie and therefore I think it will be successful- and also, balancing that with whatever qualitative data they have at their disposal. None of these decision makers have all the answers, thats why they still greenlight movies that become financial disasters. The unconscious biases of these decision makers has lead to many of these opportunities going to the same groups of people. This is fact not opinion. There is no political spin to this. To constantly jump to a thought process of- EVERYTHING SHOULD BE GIVEN BASED ON MERIT, AND THIS ISN'T BASED ON MERIT- is due to you misunderstanding of how an industry based on art works. It is impossible to give out opportunities in this industry based only on merit. They don't make decisions looking solely at spreadsheets. Ok this director has done this many movies, he had this average budget, and had this average return. Ok lets do a cost analysis and thats how we will rank every opportunity. If you want to make the argument it should work like that, fine- but thats not how it works, or has worked and the majority of all the opportunity has ended up in the same people's hands without strictly making decisions based on data. Someone like you, always demanding merit to be the only variable weighed, should actually be primarily frustrated at the stats quo, because they haven't been doing that.
Last edited:
They go hand in hand. A just and fair system (equity) gives everyone equal rights (equality). PM me if you want to get into it. It's not the place here.
They are actively filling roles based primarily on gender/race/sexual preference. They have changed the rules for film awards based on these criteria. They are voraciously bragging about these things being good while making worse & worse films (granted “worse” is subjective but the box office metric would correlate with this).
The above is the current status quo.
I’ll concede that there may have never been a perfect meritocracy before but it was certainly better than what they’re doing now.
”do not make the good the enemy of the perfect”
Similar threads
