-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Terry Gilliam says "I tell the world now I’m a black lesbian" as he rants about diversity
- Thread starter Khanimus
- Start date
This is misleading. The article says that gender equality is linked with economic development and security, and implies economic security is what allows STEM involvement to diverge by gender.
Before anything else, thank you for taking the time to write this and sharing your viewpoint.
Honestly I think we agree on most of this, like I said I do feel the vast major of hires are taking into account quality and merit first and foremost. I do however think there are inequalities in some hiring practices that this story reminded me off which merit discussion. Even putting race and gender aside, I feel that for example age is one point that gets ignored and can have a impact on who gets considered for a job.
Like you say, yes there isn't true equality in the world and there might never be, and I guess you (and others) might very well argue that my opinion is naive. On the other hand I also feel that generalising and dismissing anyone who thinks "I don't want to see diversity for the sake of diversity" as something not worth discussing as a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Anyway, think we just differ on on how we are looking at this... think you are arguing for lets get the 'bigger inequality issue' fixed before we start discussing the other smaller details while I'm just saying keep potential smaller issues in mind and don't just brush them aside while fixing the current bigger problem.
Why is that misleading? When money is less of a factor, you can choose a line of work for reasons other than the money, no? Meanwhile when the income gap is bigger between STEM and non-STEM there is a bigger push to go for the field just for the money.
Please shut the fuck up Terry.
He's obsessed with making sure absolutely everyone knows what a utter fucking cunt he is.
He's obsessed with making sure absolutely everyone knows what a utter fucking cunt he is.
It really is sad but likely true that had he come up in the current era Monty Python might never of been given a shot. The man is a living legend.
Right. But you highlighted the correlation between gender equality and lack of women in STEM to imply women don't want to work in tech, even though the causal link is between economic security and less women in STEM. And this link doesn't show that women are uninterested in STEM; it does not mean that lowering barriers that face women in tech would not increase women in the industry, potentially even to parity. At most it implies that some women who go into STEM do it for the money rather than because they are interested in it, but that isn't exactly surprising.
Yes, and he's absolutely right when he says comedy groups cannot be assembled like a boy band, carefully picking members to be diverse.
I don't know if that's what's happening, though, certainly sounds like that's what he's against.
Also, those guys were awesome and a lot of their sketches still are.
You'd have the job at the end of the day so I doubt you would feel the same as being denied employment lol
Ignoring Gilliam's bullshit and focusing on Allen's statement, because it is important:
But... Monty Python was not 'assembled' in that sense. They came together more by circumstance. Of course their whiteness is a possible reflection of the lack of 'mixing' in society at that time but it's not as if you can't have five funny white guys or five funny black guys form a group even nowadays. People still very often travel in racially homogeneous circles.
What I wonder is if a comedy group were to assemble itself and be sufficiently entertaining/funny while also a group of six white dudes.... would they refuse to air it because it doesn't hit a diversity quota? I'd hope not. But that is the obvious implication since he is responding directly to a question about Monty Python.
In short, I like Cleese's response.
This is fair. What he means is that you have 'TV people' assembling a team that reflects diversity and represents not just white people. Those are important considerations for a producer/executive/etc, not just for money reasons but also for social responsibility reasons
But... Monty Python was not 'assembled' in that sense. They came together more by circumstance. Of course their whiteness is a possible reflection of the lack of 'mixing' in society at that time but it's not as if you can't have five funny white guys or five funny black guys form a group even nowadays. People still very often travel in racially homogeneous circles.
What I wonder is if a comedy group were to assemble itself and be sufficiently entertaining/funny while also a group of six white dudes.... would they refuse to air it because it doesn't hit a diversity quota? I'd hope not. But that is the obvious implication since he is responding directly to a question about Monty Python.
In short, I like Cleese's response.
What's even more sad is all the hilarious women and PoC who never were given a shot before.
Seems like a lot of hand wringing for the white dudes and their currently non-existent woes. Because seriously, even with Allen's statement, how often do British white guys with an idea get turned down over women and PoC??? I don't do slippery slope paranoia nonsense.
Hand wringing? Slippery slope paranoia? Why are you being so hyperbolic/melodramatic? I led by saying I appreciated Allen's statement, but also responded to what he said in the context of Monty Python.
Yeah, and your big fat "BUT...." is what I responded to. Like, I actually toned done the much more visceral response I was going to give, since your worry over the fallacy of a bunch of white guys not getting their way because (possibly, maybe) some women and PoC were given a shot instead was gross.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you're sincerely challenged in understanding. I worry for you, dude
I said:
Which directly contradicts your misrepresentation of what I said. Diversity is important. White people losing jobs is important. etc
I then spoke specifically about comedy teams that are NOT assembled by TV people, dudes that come together and realize they work well together, a la Monty Python.
If you can't reconcile the two perspectives and need to speak in dramatic, absolute terms, that's an unfortunate waste of time
I 'm quite sure you don't worry for me, but your oh so dramatic condescension has been noted. So has your less than subtle suggestion that me simply refuting you is the same as mental deficiency. Classy.
Ahh yes, a woman or PoC getting something must mean that a white guy had it taken from him.
Listen dude: you did your open-faced praise sandwich by putting in some lip service about diversity to try to take the heat off you before sharting out the 'won't someone please think of the white men!' fallacy. then added in some tone policing and shady ableism after I responded. And once again, where are the white people losing their jobs? it's not fucking happening, and even if it was it's certainly not at the rate women and PoC lose out on shit. It's not important because it's not even a thing. Why you keep bringing it up is, again, gross.
White guys not getting the job maybe - just fucking MAYBE - is because someone else who wasn't a white guy was funnier. Not because of diversity quota (lovely words from you), or because someone is putting down whitey.
Ahh yes, a woman or PoC getting something must mean that a white guy had it taken from him.
Listen dude: you did your open-faced praise sandwich by putting in some lip service about diversity to try to take the heat off you before sharting out the 'won't someone please think of the white men!' fallacy. then added in some tone policing and shady ableism after I responded. And once again, where are the white people losing their jobs? it's not fucking happening, and even if it was it's certainly not at the rate women and PoC lose out on shit. It's not important because it's not even a thing. Why you keep bringing it up is, again, gross.
White guys not getting the job maybe - just fucking MAYBE - is because someone else who wasn't a white guy was funnier. Not because of diversity quota (lovely words from you), or because someone is putting down whitey.
Terry Gilliam has been saying misguided stuff like this for a long time. I like him as a director, but he's not great with words. SMH though at all the people saying he was the weakest Python, his animation work was groundbreaking.
The quote from the BBC is also odd, is he implying that Monty Python wasn't diverse due to the lack of PoC's or women (as core part of the troupe)? Because that's not really fair, Python was plenty diverse for its time (Cleese's post shows that well).
That he uses the word "assemble" is also odd. Is he inplying that tv execs put together Monty Python? Because that isn't what happened.
The quote from the BBC is also odd, is he implying that Monty Python wasn't diverse due to the lack of PoC's or women (as core part of the troupe)? Because that's not really fair, Python was plenty diverse for its time (Cleese's post shows that well).
That he uses the word "assemble" is also odd. Is he inplying that tv execs put together Monty Python? Because that isn't what happened.
But Monty Python actually had a hilarious woman who might've never been officially part of the troupe, but came pretty damn close. Carol Cleveland was in 30 Flying Circus episodes and appeared in all Python films and has implied in interviews that she had some part in the writing process (since the Python boys knew fully well they weren't the best at writing roles for young women).
Your humor detector is broken, then. This is nothing but a whiny old man whining about people driving for more equal opportunities for people of all kinds and making a dumb statement about it because he doesn't understand what people are asking for and is feeling his white, straight man privilege threatened.
