In short, evidence revealed by the Sony hack, and other outstanding evidence, points to Hollywood's continued resistance to reformation of racial perceptions.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Journalist Claims: Data from Sony Hack Reveals that Hollywood Holds on to Racism
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 45 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @08:52PM
Emails about what to ask Obama:
"Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” Rudin responded: “12 YEARS.” Pascal quickly continued down the path of guessing Obama preferred movies by or starring African Americans. “Or the butler. Or think like a man? [sic]”
Rudin’s response: “Ride-along. I bet he likes Kevin Hart.”"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/scott-rudin-on-obama-i-bet-he-likes-kevin-hart#.eqNWZEVpP [buzzfeed.com]
Link to others about Angelina Jolie, Leonardo DiCaprio, and others:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/leaked-sony-emails-reveal-angelina-jolie-called-a-minimally#.pydM2mvnD [buzzfeed.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:54PM
yo mama is so ugly, thai ladyboys ask for a change, yo mama's ass is so fat that her toilet has a rooster on it.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 28 2014, @09:23AM
So I read those articles and I'm kind of left feeling like there really isn't a whole lot there. As for the movies and actors involved, I didn't recognize more than 10% of the stuff. Maybe it's an inside joke, but I personally need a much clearer explanation of how this was racist. Compared to assholes like Mel Gibson, she seems at most a little fart.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 28 2014, @09:39AM
So to self reply.
1) the writer of article in TFS hasn't read the emails. Yet writes a long piece on them. While a factual basis is not a requirement for an opinion piece, the lack of such should be taken into consideration when evaluating that opinion.
2) the writer of the article bemoans the fact that there are not enough minorities in movies or oscars, and that this harms a lot of people who would be pleased to have more actors/movies/awards go to pictures/actors with which they can identify because of actors who share skin pigmentation with viewers.
3) [Sony Exec whose name I've already forgot and will never remember anyway] was thinking of asking Obama about his favorite movies, a list of movies in which actors who share skin pigmentation with Obama was posed, and thus she is a racist.
It seems to me that 2 and 3 are logically incompatible. In #2, it is seen as a public good to make movies that have actors who share skin pigmentation with viewers because those viewers will more readily identify with such movies, but in #3, it is seen as racism to think that a person might identify with an actor with whom he shares skin pigmentation.
So in the end, the writer has no factual basis upon which he posits a logically inconsistent conclusion. So yeah -- whatever.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 29 2014, @02:22AM
Regarding racism in item 3 -- since when was the meaning of "patronizing" changed to "racist?"
Anybody who believes that item 3 is racist can kindly fuck off and die. Was that a patronizing thing to say? Sure. Was it a tacky thing to say? Sure. Was it racist? Hell fucking no. Racism would be to suggest that Obama should sit at the back seat of the bus and enter restaurants through the rear entrance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @08:52PM
That's racist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @10:00PM
Reblog!
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 27 2014, @08:54PM
Can't be racism, Sony upper level execs are pretty much all Japanese. Or are black people the only minority that's exempt from racism charges?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:08PM
This is about Sony Pictures [wikipedia.org] not the larger Japanese conglomerate. The top two people are Jewish, not Japanese.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:24PM
Jewish identity politics are among the most doctrinal, racist elitism in world history. "Chosen People".
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:58PM
Sounds like every other group of nutbags to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @10:58PM
American exceptionalism, fuck yeah!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:28AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:15AM
If Sony Pictures is owned by Sony, then it most definitely *is* Sony. The parent company is responsible for the behaviour of the parent and vice versa for this sort of thing, in my opinion.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:40AM
If Sony Pictures is owned by Sony, then it most definitely *is* Sony.
You're welcome to see it that way but since nobody making this argument is making a list of movies to boycott over the rootkit scandal none of you are doing a very good job retaining any sort of measurable consistency. You don't want to watch Body of Lies because guess who did some of the visual effects for it. Me personally, I don't hold any of the employees whose data was leaked accountable for the rootkit scandal because none of them were involved. In fact the offices of the two buildings are in two different cities! I also know that SPI and SCEA didn't join forces to remove Linux from the PS3. We can discuss it further, but you're a long way from convincing me to draw a line thick enough where I'd say: "Yeah, it's okay that those employees got what they got out of karma." To me it's like throwing tomatoes at Skywalker Sound because you didn't like the Star Wars prequels.
But that is beside the point anyway, we were talking about the nationality of the executives. ;)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:03PM
Since I boycott all movies with MPAA approval, it would be pointless. You can easily check whether a movie is MPAA approved, it's on the poster. (Apparently some people think it's a good thing, only the gods know why.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:03AM
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:41PM
Uhhh... I thought they wanted to make Idris Elba [blogspot.com] the new James Bond? If that's racist awful different from the racism I know of. I did find it funny that the only person I read that thought it was a bad idea was old pill popping Rush Limburger, something about how James Bond is white? I guess old Limburger doesn't understand its a fictional character, I hear painkillers can mess up your critical thinking and all.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:11PM
FWIW, being Japanese doesn't keep you from being racist. Japanese culture is extremely racist...though xenophobic might be more accurate. They are, e.g., biased against Koreans. And many of them have certainly exhibited bias against negros in the past, though they may be more biased against Koreans.
For that matter, prior to WWII the Japanese were also biased against Caucasians, though I don't know how strongly. I didn't observe that while I was living there in the 1950s, however. But I have a cousin who married a Japanese man, and she reports a continual feeling of exclusion...I'm not sure that prejudice is quite the right word, more like "what are you doing in our country". Somewhat similar to what used to be reported by outsiders visiting small towns that were a bit isolated.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:03PM
So according to NPR it is white privilege when two Jewish [wikipedia.org] movie executives [wikipedia.org] make racist jokes. Got ya.
The author of TFA then goes on to blame "such a white-dominated industry" for the lack of promotion of predominantly black films and stars. Of course, if the author blamed the Jewish executives for this, he wouldn't be working long at NPR.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday December 27 2014, @10:13PM
I'm a white guy and this is just laughably stupid. In one sense, we can see the ugliness of some executives, and it's saddening to see such attitudes still exist. We don't want these attitudes and behaviors to be rewarded with an executive position in a corporation. Those people need to be pumping gas and muttering their angry words on soap boxes in the park.
OTOH, this is fucking Sony . I'm not exactly convinced that a monolithic empire of evil is going to be seen speaking for me just because I'm white, and they happen to be white. I've got a butthole. Hitler had a butthole. What else do we need to compare? Is that what this NPR speaker wants me to fear? That the general public would believe these two racist fools speak for all whiteness?
In all seriousness, why are people even giving this douchenozzle the benefit of exposure? We all know that Hollywood is populated by sociopaths that greedily fight over nickles in $100 million dollar movies. They don't speak to the cultures of anybody else in America, but that of sociopathic corporate greed run amuck. It doesn't necessarily mean anything further, and even if it did, this NPR speaker is apparently too stupid to realize that in this game of US vs THEM that he and I are differently colored pieces on the same side.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @10:41PM
> I'm not exactly convinced that a monolithic empire of evil is going to be seen speaking for me just because I'm white, and they happen to be white.
WTF? If what you took away from this article was that Sony, or any other company, speaks for you then you have failed boolean logic 101.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:13AM
If you want racism, think about the term "people of colour". For me, that's up there on the annoyance scale with "rape culture".
(Score: 2) by TGV on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:52AM
You're right about that one, and perhaps you aren't. "Negroes" came from the Latin word for black and is --in a literal sense-- saying the same as "black people" and "African-Americans" (provided we're talking about the population of the USA). People of color is another way of phrasing the same concept, making the group a bit larger.
However, it's also about the way words are used. Using "negro" became unacceptable because of the way it was used. Words are not defined by an inherent literal sense, but by the way they are used. Names for genitals could be just that: names for genitals. However, if you shout such a name towards a person, it is perceived as an insult, and that is because they are commonly used that way. Consequently, to avoid the negative connotations that come with words like "negro", other terms have to be used to indicate a specific group. That is not necessarily racist: it is a neutral description, unless it is used derogatory by a large part of the population. And we do need neutral descriptions that can discriminate (in the literal sense): we need concise descriptions of the speaker's intentions.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday December 28 2014, @01:11PM
"People of colour" currently seems to be used to mean "anyone but Caucasians".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:03PM
Reminds me of this:
Dear White Fella When I am born I’m black When I grow up I’m black When I am sick I’m black When I go out ina sun I’m black When I git cold I’m black When I git scared I’m black And when I die I’m still black. But you white fella When you’re born you’re pink When you grow up you’re white When you git sick you’re green When you go out ina sun you go red When you git cold you go blue When you git scared you’re yellow And when you die you’re grey And you got the cheek to call me coloured?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:55PM
Apparently you haven't kept up with your SJW politics because as we saw with Zimmerman anybody that isn't black? Must be white, even if they are Latino, or Jewish, or anything else other than black. That way they can get their daily dose of white guilt AND push the progressive stack at the same time, its a win/win!
Ya know as somebody else here pointed out I'm so far left as to be considered a "dirty commie hippie" and even I find NPR to be offensive! I can't tell ya when it happened but they went from being a left leaning radio station to full own Social Justice Warriors, we are talking PETA and Sea Kittens levels of batshit. I knew they had passed sanity a few miles back when I heard their personalities demanding that the state of CA cut a check to every illegal vegetable picker because the state was having a massive drought and there weren't no vegetables to pick...DaFuq? That is when I knew that there was no point in a leftie like me listening to NPR, they had gone full retard.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:28PM
http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/2014s-mantra-i-feel-hurt-therefore-i-censor [spiked-online.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:52PM
Do we need leaked emails to prove this? I read some time ago it would still be risky to have a movie with a mixed couple (preferably married) , where the guy is black and the woman is white. I googled it, and actually there are some examples [jeffandcorey.com], but its far less common then the other way around [jeffandcorey.com] or relationships with same skin colour, and in some cases (I didn't read the full list) the woman is never shown (Waiting to Exhale), the man is never shown (Two Family House), the white girl is a sold junkie/victim (Traffic), or the guys are light-brownish but not black. And in most cases the different skin colour is essential part of the plot, I never saw a mixed relationship where a black/black or white/white relationship would have worked as well.
Maybe this is not the same thing, because it only indicates that Hollywood might try to cater an audience they consider racist, not that Hollywood share the attitude, but to me it looks like a strong indicator.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday December 27 2014, @10:27PM
Maybe this is not the same thing, because it only indicates that Hollywood might try to cater an audience they consider racist, not that Hollywood share the attitude, but to me it looks like a strong indicator.
Maybe its the writers, or the books they choose to render into film?
To my way of thinking, anything that society is concerned/preoccupied/burdened/struggling with is fair games for movies, and blaming the movie for exploring human issues is a simply stupid and and counter productive.
Still, you have to wonder why people would render racist remarks to emails knowing full well corporate email is likely to end up in court sooner or later.
Nobody speaks up when SONY does the Expected thing:
ascal reached out to the media's highest-profile advocates on issues involving racism, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, "to discuss a healing process," as she told The Hollywood Reporter.
So they "reach out" to the Sharpton/Jackson mafia, pay them huge sums "donated" to their respective captured charities, and absolution is given with a few mild words of rebuke. The shakedown artists wind again, and the sinners have repented via wallet.
Racism ramains alive and well in America.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 27 2014, @10:56PM
Still, you have to wonder why people would render racist remarks to emails knowing full well corporate email is likely to end up in court sooner or later.
Because nobody ever thinks that they themselves are racist. That's why accusing even the most racist motherfucker of being racist gets a vitriolic, how-dare-you! denial. Every bigot ever has thought that their bigotry was firmly grounded in "truth" - they all have some convoluted thought process that rationalizes it. The smarter the people are, the better they are at expressing it without straight-forward mean-spiritedness.
The shakedown artists wind again, and the sinners have repented via wallet.
As I recall you were one of those who were pissing and moaning when mozilla took much more drastic action rather than pay off the velvet mafia for penance. This is the way the guys with tons of spare cash handle it. It is the same mechanism as punitive damage awards. The mechanism is to make public mitigation progressively more expensive thus encouraging the companies to progressively reduce problematic behaviour over time.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 27 2014, @11:17PM
Every bigot ever has thought that their bigotry was firmly grounded in "truth" - they all have some convoluted thought process that rationalizes it. The smarter the people are, the better they are at expressing it without straight-forward mean-spiritedness.
An interesting point. I'm sure I have my own biases and prejudices. Most of us do. On the other hand, I try to judge people by their actions rather than by some trait over which they have no control.
On the gripping hand, US society has long picked winners and losers based on such traits, so it's not surprising that bigotry is both rampant and often unapologetic.
All that said, I can only control (and even that is somewhat limited) what I do and say. I used to think that if people were more self-reflective we'd have a more just society. But now I'm not so sure, given that we've inculcated a large plurality that being poor is some kind of moral failing. Which makes things doubly hard for those who have been discriminated against. It's sad, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @12:22AM
Self-reflection is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. Direct personal experience is also necessary. It is the not-poor who do not know what it is like to be poor that are willing to be so callous because they simply have no idea what its like. That's the main reason poor people are more willing to give to charity than the rich (excluding social clubs like the local symphony, museums, etc.) They have personal knowledge of what it is like to struggle.
Bigotry will never go away, it is just one part of the spectrum that includes community building, institutions and trust based on common experiences and expectations. All the stuff that is necessary for a society to operate. The best we can expect is that power be distributed across the various groups in a reasonably egalitarian fashion so that any one group's bigotry isn't consistently damaging to any other group. Because really, bigotry without power is just a character flaw. That doesn't mean bigotry should be socially acceptable, but a bigotted janitor isn't hurting anyone but himself, while a bigotted CEO of a billion dollar corp could ruin lives without even noticing. So they have a higher standard to live up to.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday December 28 2014, @12:45AM
Several excellent points.
I didn't grow up poor, but I was thrust into a situation where I was quite poor as a young adult and it was not pleasant. At all.
I recommend it for everyone. It really reminds you what's really important in the world.
As for the rest, I'm not real sanguine (see what I did there :) ) about the future either.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:25PM
Because nobody ever thinks that they themselves are racist. That's why accusing even the most racist motherfucker of being racist gets a vitriolic, how-dare-you! denial. Every bigot ever has thought that their bigotry was firmly grounded in "truth" - they all have some convoluted thought process that rationalizes it. The smarter the people are, the better they are at expressing it without straight-forward mean-spiritedness.
Part of the problem is that "racism" has become such a demonizing term bandied around absent of any intelligent rebuttal or thought that anyone who doesn't hoist themselves upon a cross for their "white privilege" is said to be racist. I can genuinely respect as many people of races other than my own, and still be considered a racist monster for this very reason.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday December 28 2014, @09:12AM
They missed Serenity. Wash and Zoe were a couple.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Sunday December 28 2014, @11:27AM
Not sure Serenity is a good example. If you remember, it was considered a financial flop [wikipedia.org] in the box office, and I'd bet studio execs would use it as an example of how interracial marriages on film are a bad idea.
Also remember that Fox Television basically tried their best to kill the Firefly series off; I don't know whether it was the Sci-Fi Western genre, the racially diverse cast, or something else entirely that made them want it dead, but die it did. Ask any Browncoat at the convention, they'll tell you it was murder.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:58PM
Also remember that Fox Television basically tried their best to kill the Firefly series off; I don't know whether it was the Sci-Fi Western genre, the racially diverse cast, or something else entirely that made them want it dead, but die it did. Ask any Browncoat at the convention, they'll tell you it was murder.
I would think it is a combination of those (except for the racially diverse cast part - I can't believe that had anything to do with it). The saying "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" fits. Network TV and Fox in particular have trouble dealing with anything that doesn't fit into limited genres, genres that have been successful in the past. Thus we have a plethora of reality shows, law enforcement dramas and sitcoms, none of which, whether they are well written or not, cover any particularly new ground. You can bet there are Fox executives that would love to see the Simpsons and Family Guy die just because they are animated shows. SciFi shows in general I think are given only a grudging chance with little support, shunted off to Friday night to die a slow death as soon as they can be moved.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Monday December 29 2014, @04:11PM
Agreed.
Whether or not the Fox executives were maliciously racist, I don't feel Firefly or Serenity are good examples to use as success stories for on-screen interracial marriages. Everything you said reinforced my point that the industry didn't see them as a success, and a clueless/incompetent program director could use it to say, "See! It doesn't work, so I'm not going to fund it." The original poster should look elsewhere for his poster child for interracial success in TV/Cinema.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by jmorris on Saturday December 27 2014, @09:54PM
Or perhaps it is just people being people. People make jokes among friends, doesn't make em racists. Ok, wasn't a funny joke but that just says they were on the correct side of the corporation as executive types instead of the talent side.
Everybody in the upper echelons of Sony Pictures, is a prog in good standing; all supported and contributed cash to the Democratic Party and Obama in particular; they donate to all the right causes, exclude all the wrong people from working in the industry, etc. If the official PC Police / Race Baiter position is that these people are 'racists' after over fifty years of political cleansing then perhaps it is time to rethink the whole project, eh?
Personally, as a neoreactionary, I'd like to just pop open a cold one and watch the Blue on Blue combat but dangit I just can't. Because I also know that if these idiots are going to get sacked as 'racists' over something as tame as this, folks like me are heading for the ovens so it is speak up time... while dissent is just uncool and unPC and not suicidal.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:18PM
I don't know your friends, but my friends don't make racist jokes. Or ethnic jokes. We don't find demeaning "humor" to be humorous. (Now that I think about it, we don't even tell lawyer jokes, though when provoked by some outrageous court happening and someone responds with one I admit to finding them slightly funny. But I only encounter even that on-line.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by youngatheart on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:54PM
You need more friends.
If you don't have anyone you'd consider a friend who doesn't occasionally make a joke or comment that offends you, then you are missing out. Care should be taken to cultivate friends who differ from one's own viewpoints. Doing so leads to greater empathy and a richer life and provides the same for them.
A few of my friends make offensive jokes. They generally abstain when I'm around because they know that I'm sensitive to such things, but my life is better for sharing friendships with people who don't see the world the way I do.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday December 29 2014, @07:50PM
I think you missed the point. It's not that we abstain, we just don't find them funny. I do remember some friends back in college who found such things funny, but I also had a friend at that point who found it quite funny to say 4Q quite often. When he grew up a bit he stopped doing it.
To me ethnic jokes are usually the sign of a narrow mind, and perhaps that's why most of the people I choose as friends don't engage in them. It's not a selection factor in and of itself as far as I know. I have a suspicion that they find me a bit disagreeable because I often try to see the other person's side. Or because I don't laugh at their jokes.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by GoodBuddy on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:29AM
Are the emails discussing which movies they think Obama would like the only ones being described as racist? I did a quick search and could only find some discussion about how Denzel Washington would be received by non-US audiences.
Based on what I've seen, the Sony emails about Obama are not racist. They may be prejudiced or even bigoted but they are not racist.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:18AM
Everything that isn't race-denialism is racism nowadays.