I'm trying to figure out why this is a good HN story. Should we care what Terry Gilliam says about anything? Does this comment represent the views of some significant group that he belongs to?
I honestly wish the media wouldn't even publish these kinds of comments, because it's clearly just an attempt to stir outrage. With tens of thousands of major and minor celebrities, at least one of them is going to say something stupid and/or offensive every day. What do we get by covering all of that?
I didn't say it was both, but here goes. One caveat is that this is a very US/UK-centric response, and it might not resonate with worldviews of people from other places with different cultures and histories.
1) It's stupid because he's making an extremely opinionated comment without understanding the thing he's commenting on.
The push for diversity is not a push to remove white, "Oxbridge" (upper-crust) men from media. It's to recognize that media isn't anywhere close to being a meritocracy, and there are barriers for poor, minority, and/or female talent that didn't exist for people like Terry Gilliam.
The industry is growing, and there's space for Terry Gilliam, lots of other white men, and also people from other backgrounds. As we've seen with The Hurt Locker, Black Panther, Broad City, and other movies/TV, women/minorities can make very profitable and prestigious work. A true media meritocracy would be more diverse than what we're seeing right now.
2) Whether it's offensive depends on the person. Some people are offended by it because it implies that black lesbians are given things in society only because of their minority status.
People on that side of the issue would say that either A) that isn't happening, or B) it is (and should be) happening because black lesbians also have fewer opportunities than non-minorities and face discrimination.
I think there's a big difference between covering a movement and covering a single comment made by a person who isn't affiliated with a movement.
I completely support widespread coverage of elected officials, businesspeople, or anyone else with a lot of power making comments like these. My issue isn't the topic, but rather the scope, if that makes sense.
I'm trying to figure out why this is a good HN comment. Should we care what smt88 says about anything? Does this comment represent the views of some significant group that he belongs to?
I honestly wish HN wouldn't even publish these kinds of comments, because it's clearly just an attempt to stir outrage. With billions of people online, at least one of them is going to say something stupid and/or offensive every day. What do we get by allowing all of that?
HN is a comment section for articles. Nobodies like me comment here. That's the whole point. It's an enjoyable place to comment because the topics aren't as broad as other news sites. Do you want to read about the Kardashians here? Sometimes The Guardian covers them, too.
The Guardian is ostensibly a news organization, and it's fair to wonder why they're posting something of questionable newsworthiness. The value of many publications is in their editing.
As funny as your remark about the lack of interest on HN about the Kardashians, that is exactly the point of the article.
His provocative statement points out a problem you, me & HN will be subject to too: there can not be any exclusion anymore. And that (exclusion) exactly is what makes HN / Monty Python so great.
Your comment seems to be saying that excluding minorities and women is good. You seem to be saying that racial bias can be a form of editing/filtering to ensure quality. Can you clarify?
To read your comment as charitably as possible, you (and Terry Gilliam) either misunderstand what diversity advocates want or believe all minorities are less funny and would be underrepresented in a true meritocracy.
Again, no one is saying that an ensemble like Python be injected with minority members. They're just saying that we should give more opportunities to the black or Arab or gay versions of Pythons, or we should at least cast diverse actors when we're creating an ensemble from scratch.
A good case in point is Saturday Night Live: its biggest stars of the last 20 years have mostly been women or minorities, and it wasn't due to "affirmative action". Audiences picked them out of the crowd of actors they were seeing and loved their work.
I guess jokes are just impossible now, and we should all stop laughing.
Nothing is funny. Comedy is over.
The only acceptable subject matter is contrition for an eternal, unforgettable transgression of history retained as grudge, and held aloft in solemnity and rememberance of the forsaken, whose memory shall never leave us.
14 comments
[ 49.1 ms ] story [ 3978 ms ] threadI honestly wish the media wouldn't even publish these kinds of comments, because it's clearly just an attempt to stir outrage. With tens of thousands of major and minor celebrities, at least one of them is going to say something stupid and/or offensive every day. What do we get by covering all of that?
1) It's stupid because he's making an extremely opinionated comment without understanding the thing he's commenting on.
The push for diversity is not a push to remove white, "Oxbridge" (upper-crust) men from media. It's to recognize that media isn't anywhere close to being a meritocracy, and there are barriers for poor, minority, and/or female talent that didn't exist for people like Terry Gilliam.
The industry is growing, and there's space for Terry Gilliam, lots of other white men, and also people from other backgrounds. As we've seen with The Hurt Locker, Black Panther, Broad City, and other movies/TV, women/minorities can make very profitable and prestigious work. A true media meritocracy would be more diverse than what we're seeing right now.
2) Whether it's offensive depends on the person. Some people are offended by it because it implies that black lesbians are given things in society only because of their minority status.
People on that side of the issue would say that either A) that isn't happening, or B) it is (and should be) happening because black lesbians also have fewer opportunities than non-minorities and face discrimination.
I completely support widespread coverage of elected officials, businesspeople, or anyone else with a lot of power making comments like these. My issue isn't the topic, but rather the scope, if that makes sense.
I honestly wish HN wouldn't even publish these kinds of comments, because it's clearly just an attempt to stir outrage. With billions of people online, at least one of them is going to say something stupid and/or offensive every day. What do we get by allowing all of that?
The Guardian is ostensibly a news organization, and it's fair to wonder why they're posting something of questionable newsworthiness. The value of many publications is in their editing.
His provocative statement points out a problem you, me & HN will be subject to too: there can not be any exclusion anymore. And that (exclusion) exactly is what makes HN / Monty Python so great.
To read your comment as charitably as possible, you (and Terry Gilliam) either misunderstand what diversity advocates want or believe all minorities are less funny and would be underrepresented in a true meritocracy.
Again, no one is saying that an ensemble like Python be injected with minority members. They're just saying that we should give more opportunities to the black or Arab or gay versions of Pythons, or we should at least cast diverse actors when we're creating an ensemble from scratch.
A good case in point is Saturday Night Live: its biggest stars of the last 20 years have mostly been women or minorities, and it wasn't due to "affirmative action". Audiences picked them out of the crowd of actors they were seeing and loved their work.
Nothing is funny. Comedy is over.
The only acceptable subject matter is contrition for an eternal, unforgettable transgression of history retained as grudge, and held aloft in solemnity and rememberance of the forsaken, whose memory shall never leave us.
Unfortunately, they're still happening on a daily basis and many people are trying to deny that they ever happened at all.