Support NeoGAF

[Aaronrules380]

Because if white people are the majority and thus get represented proportionately, that means the majority of the opportunities end up being white. Ergo everyone else gets the scraps in comparison. That's why the idea of "proportional representation" is flawed, because one group inherently will reap much greater benefits than everyone else.

Sure, but there are also more white people competiting for those same opportunities. Equal representation gives members smaller groups an ENORMOUS advantage, because now instead of 600 people fighting for 60 spots and 100 people fighting for 100 spots, you've got 600 people fighting for 25 spots and 100 people fighting for 25. So now each minority applicant is more likely to succeed, and each majority applicant has a much smaller chance of succeeding, regardless of talent. Why should a group with way less people get the same number of jobs as the group with way more people? All you're doing is making race more important than actual skill

 

[Nachos]

If anyone's curious, Crispin Freeman interviewed Phil Lamarr on his podcast a while ago, and they touched on matters of representation a little. I can't remember which part it was in, but the whole interview's good and is only about an hour long. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

More people also need to stop sleeping on Amanda Celine Miller. I could honestly see her surpassing Bailey eventually.

My perspective on this is, and this might be an unfair assumption, that the industry probably does have a problem wrt roles for black actors. The reason is because so many VAs just kind of get role after role and are always gone to, regardless of if they are right for that role or not, because hey people know who Laura Bailey or Nolan North are! And because the people everyone knows are white, it means that big, good non-white roles are often given to the most popular people instead of the right actors.

Part of that is agents. All agents (assuming they're reputable) take a set percentage of their actor's wages if they helped book the role, which is why when a casting call comes around, they're much more likely to push the bigger names who can negotiate higher pay. The momentum then just keeps building.

The SAG should have numbers regarding the number of non-white voice actors auditioning for and landing roles in comparison to white voice actors in the United States - right? If those figures are available they'd reveal whether or not white voice actors are enjoying a disproportionate opportunity for roles.

SAG-AFTRA is only a tiny part of the overall VO industry. Those numbers would give a decent picture of how things are in top-tier productions, but not for the industry as a whole.

To avoid accusations of racism, maybe the people who hire voice actors should listen to auditions in a studio where they can't see the person auditioning. They also shouldn't have access to the name of the actor or actress. They would just listen to the recordings of every applicant, and choose the best performance.

I wonder if the proportion of white vs. black would change under these circumstances. I doubt it, but who knows.

For the most part, that's exactly how the industry works, minus not being able to look at the name. Very rarely are auditions (and performances if you're not doing something character-based) done in-person, and if they are, a lot's for mo-cap. If we're just talking about games, though, then things are a little more weighted, partly because a director might be more inclined to reuse actors they know are reliable. But like I said, the actor's name will always be attached to their reel, so who knows what effect having non-white names might have?

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

Sure, but there are also more white people competiting for those same opportunities. Equal representation gives members smaller groups an ENORMOUS advantage, because now instead of 600 people fighting for 60 spots and 100 people fighting for 100 spots, you've got 600 people fighting for 25 spots and 100 people fighting for 25. So now each minority applicant is more likely to succeed, and each majority applicant has a much smaller chance of succeeding, regardless of talent. Why should a group with way less people get the same number of jobs as the group with way more people? All you're doing is making race more important than actual skill

It at least makes things much fairer for everyone involved. It's not about race, it's about ensuring everyone legitimately has access to the same opportunity. If the same opportunity is genuinely being granted to people, then that makes things far more equal than giving the opportunity to a bunch of people from one group and a small number of people from smaller groups.

If anyone's curious, Crispin Freeman interviewed Phil Lamarr on his podcast a while ago, and they touched on this a little. I can't remember which part it was in, but the whole interview's good and is only about an hour long. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

More people also need to stop sleeping on Amanda Celine Miller. I could honestly see her surpassing Bailey eventually.

Amanda Miller is great. She's new but has a lot of places to go.

Thanks for the links with Freeman. I'll have to check that out sometime.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Did you not answer my question on purpose? If you're not willing to do so, I'll answer it instead. Yes, white actors absolutely have a leg up when it comes to lead roles. They are absolutely more represented there than a mere 60%.
.

I did answer the querstion

Spoiler

No

. But I think that's even more of a reason not to try to force the "black characters should be played by black actors" because it's more likely to make it harder for black actors to get leading roles

What you didn't answer is how what you're suggesting would actually fix the issue

 

[A Link to the Past]

I did answer the querstion


What you didn't answer is how what you're suggesting would actually fix the issue

What am I suggesting?

 

[Neiteio]

No, he is saying to do it blind, and then adding "we don't have proof that the disproportionate representation is because of bias." I entirely understand why people are proposing the blind casting, but trying to claim that the reason we need this is due to anything other than racial bias is absurd.

I'm saying I don't know what is or isn't happening. None of us do. We can't bare the hearts and souls of every single director on every casting choice they've made. We can't divine whether any given choice was made with genuine conviction that a performance was better, or if it was due to conscious or subconscious racism.

But what I do know is blind auditions can eliminate the problem of racial discrimination entirely. If the directors can't see the race of the applicant (since they're listening in a windowless room), or deduce it from their name (since it's blacked out on the form), then we can rest assured that whoever is hired is hired based on talent.

Blind auditions seemed to help minorities in orchestras and software engineering, according to those studies posted earlier. They could help here, too.

 

[Aaronrules380]

It at least makes things much fairer for everyone involved. It's not about race, it's about ensuring everyone legitimately has access to the same opportunity. If the same opportunity is genuinely being granted to people, then that makes things far more equal.

It doesn't though. Proportional representation means literally everyone with equal skill has an equal shot. Equal means smaller groups have a huge advantage because they're competiting against a much smaller pool of individuals. How is that fair?

 

[Aaronrules380]

What am I suggesting?

Well if you aren't suggesting that the idea of black actors being preferable to white actors for black characters is a good thing, than I have no idea why you're arguing with me in the first place

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

It doesn't though. Proportional representation means literally everyone with equal skill has an equal shot. Equal means smaller groups have a huge advantage because they're competiting against a much smaller pool of individuals. How is that fair?

It's fair because the largest group doesn't make up the largest proportion because they are "more skilled". They make it up because there's more of them. Skill has nothing to do with that. If they really are the most skilled, then a fairer system will still let them stay at the top, while allowing skilled people from other groups a greater chance to make it to the top. The only people who are hurt are, well, people who probably weren't that skilled to begin with.

 

[SarusGray]

Sure, but there are also more white people competiting for those same opportunities. Equal representation gives members smaller groups an ENORMOUS advantage, because now instead of 600 people fighting for 60 spots and 100 people fighting for 100 spots, you've got 600 people fighting for 25 spots and 100 people fighting for 25. So now each minority applicant is more likely to succeed, and each majority applicant has a much smaller chance of succeeding, regardless of talent. Why should a group with way less people get the same number of jobs as the group with way more people? All you're doing is making race more important than actual skill

I understand this predicament and it actually makes reasonable sense. The thing is though is that discrimination still exists and to a larger extent, this bars people from getting the jobs they want. Realistically, yes that sounds about right, but in reality, way more variables occur where people of color can't get jobs because of their skin color. It's difficult to explore this without doing a study that examines how bad this happens in the video game industry or the industry as a whole.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'm saying I don't know what is or isn't happening. None of us do. We can't bare the hearts and souls of every single director on every casting choice they've made. We can't divine whether any given choice was made with genuine conviction that a performance was better, or if it was due to conscious or subconscious racism.

But what I do know is blind auditions can eliminate the problem of racial discrimination entirely. If the directors can't see the race of the applicant (since they're listening in a windowless room), or deduce it from their name (since it's blacked out on the form), then we can rest assured that whoever is hired is hired based on talent.

Blind auditions seemed to help minorities in orchestras and software engineering, according to those studies posted earlier. They could help here, too.

Occam's razor suggests that we go with the simplest explanation. Yes or no, is it a simpler explanation to say that racial bias is why white people are so dominant in voice acting, or is it simpler to say that white people are simply more skilled voice actors?

Well if you aren't suggesting that the idea of black actors being preferable to white actors for black characters is a good thing, than I have no idea why you're arguing with me in the first place

Of course I'm arguing that. I'm not arguing a "mandate" on it. I'm arguing that wanting quality voice acting and wanting black people to have reasonable access to black roles go hand-in-hand. And frankly, do you truly think that the video game VA industry doesn't get just as much casting calls for white actors as the film industry does?

 

[Aaronrules380]

It's fair because the largest group doesn't make up the largest proportion because they are "more skilled". They make it up because there's more of them. Skill has nothing to do with that.

It's not that the larger group is more skilled and has nothing to do with that. Let me explain

If 10% of any population are at or above a certain skill level, than a group with 10,000 individuals will produce 1,000 individuals at that level, whereas a group with 100 people will produce 10. The average skill is the same, but a larger talent pool will ALWAYS mean more talent unless you suggest that the two pools aren't equally skilled in the first place

 

[Neiteio]

Occam's razor suggests that we go with the simplest explanation. Yes or no, is it a simpler explanation to say that racial bias is why white people are so dominant in voice acting, or is it simpler to say that white people are simply more skilled voice actors?

I'm a journalist by trade. Reality is not always so simple.

You're arguing with a kindred spirit who knows (quite personally) that racism is very real.

But I won't accuse any one person of racism just because they hired a white person.

And really, blind auditions would make all of this a moot point. They remove the factor of race entirely.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

It's not that the larger group is more skilled and has nothing to do with that. Let me explain

If 10% of any population are at or above a certain skill level, than a group with 10,000 individuals will produce 1,000 individuals at that level, whereas a group with 100 people will produce 10. The average skill is the same, but a larger talent pool will ALWAYS mean more talent unless you suggest that the two pools aren't equally skilled in the first place

The problem is those two groups aren't treated the same and the latter is given very few opportunities.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'm a journalist by trade. Reality is not always so simple.

You're arguing with a kindred spirit who knows (quite personally) that racism is very real.

But I won't accuse any one person of racism just because they hired a white person.

And really, blind auditions would make all of this a moot point. They remove the factor of race entirely.

Why is this a matter of accusing "any one person" of racism? We're accusing the system of favouring one race over others. In general, you simply do not see the lead role of a game go to a white person so consistently because they just happened to be right for the job. At best, that role goes to them because an agent (as noted above) pushed that actor over a smaller one, or that actor simply had the money to afford to do as much casting calls as they probably did.

Again, I'm not arguing that blind auditions aren't ultimately preferable - I'm arguing that they are needed because of a racist system, not because it would serve as proof of a racist system.

 

[Neiteio]

Why is this a matter of accusing "any one person" of racism? We're accusing the system of favouring one race over others. In general, you simply do not see the lead role of a game go to a white person so consistently because they just happened to be right for the job. At best, that role goes to them because an agent (as noted above) pushed that actor over a smaller one, or that actor simply had the money to afford to do as much casting calls as they probably did.

Blind auditions should solve all of this. By concealing the applicant's name and face, directors can't be biased by race, culture, creed, gender, sexuality, or even the actor's fame and reputation.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Blind auditions should solve all of this. By concealing the applicant's name and face, directors can't be biased by race, culture, creed, gender, sexuality, or even the actor's fame and reputation.

As I elaborated, my complaint is not related to the idea of blind auditions, merely that blind auditions would provide evidence of bias when bias is already very apparent.

 

[SarusGray]

Blind auditions should solve all of this. By concealing the applicant's name and face, directors can't be biased by race, culture, creed, gender, sexuality, or even the actor's fame and reputation.

nah, it would just show how our society is still kind of racist that we have to resort to blind auditions. You bet also they'd find loopholes around it. I think diversity training would help more.

 

[Neiteio]

As I elaborated, my complaint is not related to the idea of blind auditions, merely that blind auditions would provide evidence of bias when bias is already very apparent.

You may be more educated on this than me. As I said, I don't know what any director's reason is for choosing or not choosing someone. I'm not all-seeing and all-knowing. All I know is that blind auditions would singlehandedly solve this whole issue, at least where voice acting is concerned.

 

[Aaronrules380]

The problem is those two groups aren't treated the same and the latter is given very few opportunities.

I'm not talking about the real world. I'm saying that if both sides are given the exact same opportunities, the side with more people will inevitably have more people getting the job. If those 1010 people above that skill level all applied for 10 jobs, and bias between groups isn't an issue, naturally only 1 person would end up being of the smaller group, but both groups are still getting about 10% of their applicants a job, so members of either group are equally likely to get a job

Lets contrast this with 10 jobs where equal representation is forced. Now half of the smaller qualified group will get in, but only 5 out of 1000 of the bigger group is getting in. In other words, 50% of the smaller group get jobs, but only 0.5% of the larger group is. In other words, a qualified member of the smaller group would be 100 times more likely to get a job. How is that more fair?

 

[Famassu]

And I reiterate: How would mandating that a minority character be played by an actor of the same minority do anything to help that, especially when most leading roles characterwise are also white?

Again, no one is asking for mandates, but it wouldn't HURT game devs/publishers/whoever decide these things to at least occasionally maybe putting a bit more effort into searching for minority voice actors instead of always going with the Nolan Norths, Troy Bakers & Laura Baileys of voice acting for every role ever. Not JUST for black/minority roles.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Again, no one is asking for mandates, but it wouldn't HURT game devs/publishers/whoever decide these things to at least occasionally maybe putting a bit more effort into searching for minority voice actors instead of always going with the Nolan Norths, Troy Bakers & Laura Baileys of voice acting for every role ever. Not JUST for black/minority roles.

I agree. But I think it's more helpful to do that without stressing the race of the character in the first place, which will only lead to issues

 

[injurai]

As I elaborated, my complaint is not related to the idea of blind auditions, merely that blind auditions would provide evidence of bias when bias is already very apparent.

Huh? The problem is that it gives us evidence when we already have evidence? The purpose isn't even to be a litmus test but to be a solution.

nah, it would just show how our society is still kind of racist that we have to resort to blind auditions. You bet also they'd find loopholes around it. I think diversity training would help more.

Yeah, we can't use blind auditions because that means we have to admit we are racist. /s

 

[Bishop89]

Wouldn't it be hard to judge a person's character if you can't physically interact with them?

You'll have to work with this person, so you want to make sure you're hiring someone who's not only talented but good to work with, which I feel would be harder to judge in a blind audition.

 

[Tovarisc]

If it's stats you want, this may not be perfect but it should paint a pretty clear picture.
http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/top-listings/?type=va_roles_single_game
http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/top-listings/?type=va_char_roles

Well yeah, when claims like "Black VA talent don't get same opportunities to get roles as white VA talent" are made I would like some data or official study that shows it to be case. Links you provided show a lot white faces, but to me it doesn't show that e.g. black VA talent didn't get chance and same opportunity to land some role that e.g. Baker got at the end.

I'm not saying that there isn't possible issue going on, but is it proven that black VA talent gets less opportunities? If casting for role X is open and doesn't specify e.g. race and age of character what prevents black VA talent for taking that opportunity and trying for part?

Assumption is that every time and all the time when VA director sees skin color of VA talent it decides success or failure, no matter of VA talents actual VA skills? If that is the assumption then blind auditioning should have quite a bit support, would make for interesting "study" and to some extent show if and how much race is factor.

Also at what point it becomes less issue of race and more issue of connections? Names like Nolan North have been dropped quite a few times in this thread and NN is very widely used VA talent in videogame VA industry. How many of his gigs he has possibly landed just because he knows everybody and everybody knows him inside videogame VA industry?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Huh? The problem is that it gives us evidence when we already have evidence? The purpose isn't even to be a litmus test but to be a solution.



Yeah, we can't use blind auditions because that means we have to admit we are racist. /s

The user had argued that it would provide evidence, and my rebuttal is that it would give us evidence that we already have.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

I'm not talking about the real world.

Well I'm not interested in some made up world.

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

Well yeah, when claims like "Black VA talent don't get same opportunities to get roles as white VA talent" are made I would like some data or official study that shows it to be case. Links you provided show a lot white faces, but to me it doesn't show that e.g. black VA talent didn't get chance and same opportunity to land some role that e.g. Baker got at the end.

I'm not saying that there isn't possible issue going on, but is it proven that black VA talent gets less opportunities? If casting for role X is open and doesn't specify e.g. race and age of character what prevents black VA talent for taking that opportunity and trying for part?

Isn't that the exact problem though? Regardless of if they got to audition or not, they sure aren't being chosen in nearly the same quantities.. ergo lost opportunities.

Also at what point it becomes less issue of race and more issue of connections? Names like Nolan North have been dropped quite a few times in this thread and NN is very widely used VA talent in videogame VA industry. How many of his gigs he has possibly landed just because he knows everybody and everybody knows him inside videogame VA industry?

Ultimately though these decisions have ripples. I love Nolan but it's true you can say he's in a position of privilege getting to play everyman white guy roles like Drake and Desmond, and that's what got him the opportunities he had, which led to him gaining so many connections and even further gigs.

 

[Famassu]

Well yeah, when claims like "Black VA talent don't get same opportunities to get roles as white VA talent" are made I would like some data or official study that shows it to be case. Links you provided show a lot white faces, but to me it doesn't show that e.g. black VA talent didn't get chance and same opportunity to land some role that e.g. Baker got at the end.

I'm not saying that there isn't possible issue going on, but is it proven that black VA talent gets less opportunities? If casting for role X is open and doesn't specify e.g. race and age of character what prevents black VA talent for taking that opportunity and trying for part?

Assumption is that every time and all the time when VA director sees skin color of VA talent it decides success or failure, no matter of VA talents actual VA skills? If that is the assumption then blind auditioning should have quite a bit support, would make for interesting "study" and to some extent show if and how much race is factor.

Also at what point it becomes less issue of race and more issue of connections? Names like Nolan North have been dropped quite a few times in this thread and NN is very widely used VA talent in videogame VA industry. How many of his gigs he has possibly landed just because he knows everybody and everybody knows him inside videogame VA industry?

It happens in pretty much all other industries, minorities having more or less worse chances to get jobs when put against white applicants, this is something that has been studied a lot. There's really no reason to believe voice acting gigs would be any different, even if there aren't studies that focus solely on minority voice actor hiring practices.

 

[Neiteio]

The user had argued that it would provide evidence, and my rebuttal is that it would give us evidence that we already have.

I said I don't know if racial discrimination is the reason why blacks don't get the same number of roles. Racism is real, but whether it's present in every situation where a white is chosen over a black, I don't know.

The main point I was making is blind auditions would get around any racial discrimination that may be going on. It would deprive directors of the ability to be racist in the first place, since they wouldn't know the race of the person they choose.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Well I'm not interested in some made up world.

Then you're ignoring the context of my statement which was to refute the idea that equal representation is inherently more fair than truly proportional representation

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Then you're ignoring the context of my statement which was to refute the idea that equal representation is inherently more fair than truly proportional representation

Yes because it's wrong and is a way to protect the status quo.

 

[Genuflections]

It at least makes things much fairer for everyone involved. It's not about race, it's about ensuring everyone legitimately has access to the same opportunity. If the same opportunity is genuinely being granted to people, then that makes things far more equal than giving the opportunity to a bunch of people from one group and a small number of people from smaller groups.

I think if I give you an example you may agree with the equal representation thing. It seems you think it won't give minorities the "same" opportunity - but it does if race is the determining factor here for whether something is "equal."

For example say 62 white guys and 13 black guys are looking for a voice acting job. This would make sense given the racial demographics of the US. Equal representation says that if 10 of the white guys get hired, then 2 black guys should get hired. If 50 white guys get hired, then 10-11 black guys should get hired. Each person has an equal chance of getting hired when we take their race into account.

If you believe hiring should be skill based, and that race has no impact on skill level, then you should also believe that equal representation should be the default state of employment demographics.

Edit: I'm using "equal representation" to mean it follows the natural demographics of the country. Not sure how others are using it.

 

[Mediking]

The whole Nadine situation sucks.

As a black man, seeing Nadine kick ass is great, and Laura Bailey is one of my favorite voice actors; I absolutely love her take on the character. Her playing Nadine doesn't really bother me, but I can absolutely see why others wouldn't like it--mainly because it's emblematic of a much larger systemic issue of a lack of representation, both in terms of the games and the studios making them. It stands out a lot more because we rarely see characters like Nadine in big AAA productions, or in general really.

^

 

[Devil]

I'm perfectly fine with that... Completely ignoring the ethnicity of the voice over is is a good thing to do, even, as long as no one is preferred or discriminated because of it. The character is dark skinned, which is great, no need to care about the skin color of the actor behind it. Sam Jackson's german voice over is a white old dude who is amazing at what he does. It doesn't take away any of the respect for the black character portrayed by a black actor.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Then you're ignoring the context of my statement which was to refute the idea that equal representation is inherently more fair than truly proportional representation

It's not even proportional though in reality, even your attempt to argue in favor of the status quo falls flat on its face.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Yes because it's wrong and is a way to protect the status quo.

Not really since proportional representation isn't the status quo at all. I'm talking about what goal we should aim for

 

[injurai]

Yes because it's wrong and is a way to protect the status quo.

This is absurd. Equal representation is proportional. It should only be disproportional to make up for lost ground, but not as an end goal. Proportionality doesn't protect the status quo at all either. Nevermind the status quo is less than proportional representation to begin with.

 

[cj_iwakura]

Garcian Smith(arguably the most iconic black character)seemed to have been voiced by a black man:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0126023/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

I think if I give you an example you may agree with the equal representation thing. It seems you think it won't give minorities the "same" opportunity - but it does if race is the determining factor here for whether something is "equal."

For example say 62 white guys and 13 black guys are looking for a voice acting job. This would make sense given the racial demographics of the US. Equal representation says that if 10 of the white guys get hired, then 2 black guys should get hired. If 50 white guys get hired, then 10-11 black guys should get hired. Each person has an equal chance of getting hired when we take their race into account.

If you believe hiring should be skill based, and that race has no impact on skill level, then you should also believe that equal representation should be the default state of employment demographics.

The "proportional representation" argument is bunk when it's used to justify a cycle that makes it difficult for people not born into a majority group to break into an employment field. Everyone should be allowed the same opportunities. Using statistics to say, "oh, but statistically there's less of you than them, sucks to be you!" is what's been going on for decades and it's not fair. It inherently grants fewer opportunities to people who are not in the largest group.

And the point is more that regardless, the amount of representation for characters in video games scarcely represents the proportions of reality, so why should the employment structure follow that?

 

[hawk2025]

The "proportional representation" argument is bunk when it's used to justify a cycle that makes it difficult for people not born into a majority group to break into an employment field. Everyone should be allowed the same opportunities. Using statistics to say, "oh, but statistically there's less of you than them, sucks to be you!" is what's been going on for decades and it's not fair.

I'm not sure I understand this point.

Assuming an exactly equal distribution of talent and opportunities along with no other market frictions, why wouldn't the proportion of employees observed in the data be roughly equal to the proportions in the population?

 

[Aaronrules380]

The "proportional representation" argument is bunk when it's used to justify a cycle that makes it difficult for people not born into a majority group to break into an employment field. Everyone should be allowed the same opportunities. Using statistics to say, "oh, but statistically there's less of you than them, sucks to be you!" is what's been going on for decades and it's not fair.

And the point is more that regardless, the amount of representation for characters in video games scarcely represents the proportions of reality, so why should the employment structure follow that?

Proportional representation literally means that every individual has the EXACT same chance of getting the job. Over representing any group (which equal representation implies) is the problem since that means any over represented group has an easier time and underrepresented groups have a harder time

 

[Genuflections]

The "proportional representation" argument is bunk when it's used to justify a cycle that makes it difficult for people not born into a majority group to break into an employment field.

How is this justifying a cycle? It's literally saying that everyone should have exact equal footing according to their race. The minority guy has the same exact chance to "break into an employment field" as the majority guy. In my example you can interchange two of the people from each group, and they'd each have the same exact chance of getting hired.

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

I'm not sure I understand this point.

Assuming an exactly equal distribution of talent and opportunities along with no other market frictions, why wouldn't the proportion of employees observed in the data be roughly equal to the proportions in the population?

Not everyone is equally talented. This form of representation means that people who may not necessarily have the most skill will have a greater chance than people at greater skill levels who happen to be in minority groups.

Over representing any group (which equal representation implies) is the problem since that means any over represented group has an easier time and underrepresented groups have a harder time

That's what's already going on now. It's just distributed a different way.

How is this justifying a cycle? It's literally saying that everyone should have exact equal footing according to their race. The minority guy has the same exact chance to "break into an employment field" as the majority guy. In my example you can interchange two of the people from each group, and they'd each have the same exact chance of getting hired.

Because we don't live in a world that has equal footing. That model doesn't represent how things actually work. If we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be a discussion. We don't. That's why these things are worth addressing.

 

[hawk2025]

Not everyone is equally talented. This form of representation means that people who may not necessarily have the most skill will have a greater chance than people at greater skill levels who happen to be in minority groups.



That's what's already going on now. It's just distributed a different way.



Because we don't live in a world that has equal footing. That model doesn't represent how things actually work.

I never said everyone is equally talented.

I said assuming the same distribution of talent across the whole population regardless of race, which is what I expect to be true. If talent is not correlated with race and there are no other market frictions like racism, why would the proportion of employed voice talent not be proportional to the proportions in the population?

 

[Inuhanyou]

Yeah, i just think it was a missed opportunity

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I'm not talking about the real world. I'm saying that if both sides are given the exact same opportunities, the side with more people will inevitably have more people getting the job.

We don't live in that world. I don't see the point in talking about how we all know it should as opposed to recognizing that it isn't and working towards getting that diversity and bringing fair opportunity to all those that want to get into the industry.

 

[Aske]

I have no issue with this. We can push for greater diversification in both characters and voice actors without forcing talented voiceover artists to play nothing but characters with the same ethnic background. Actors being judged on voice alone rather than physical appearence is one of the best things about voice acting.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Not everyone is equally talented. This form of representation means that people who may not necessarily have the most skill will have a greater chance than people at greater skill levels who happen to be in minority groups.



That's what's already going on now. It's just distributed a different way.



Because we don't live in a world that has equal footing. That model doesn't represent how things actually work.

So you're saying that on average you think minorities are more skilled? Because the basis of proportionl representation is that no population is more skilled than any other, individuals will obviously vary in skill level, but that's irrelevant to the arguement on a large scale. And nobody is saying the current system is good or proportional, merely that we should be aiming for proportional

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

So you're saying that on average you think minorities are more skilled? Because the basis of proportionl representation is that no population is more skilled than any other, individuals will obviously vary in skill level, but that's irrelevant to the arguement on a large scale. And nobody is saying the current system is good or proportional, merely that we should be aiming for proportional

No. And the problem is that we live in a multicultural society. Theoretically everyone should be able to have access to the same things. Currently that is not the case. It's obvious that 9 times out of 10, due to a multitude of factors, white actors will end up winning out. Maybe some people take issue with that. Maybe they want something that can change that and grant greater opportunities to everyone. A "proportional" system will not change that. It will simply retain the status quo and allow these issues to continue unchallenged. That's why such a system is problematic.

You are not changing anyone's mind because you are not making a clear point. Proportional or equal representation is an outcome, not necessarily a policy. Proportional is not the status quo, it's in fact (I'd assume, since I haven't seen the data directly) below where we currently are, where white representation is well above the proportions in the population.

If you still don't think proportionally is the correct outcome to shoot for, I'm all ears, though. There's an argument to be made that proportions perhaps should be skewed more in favor of minorities to drive an industry faster in a more progressive direction, especially when it comes to the arts. It's not the argument you are making right now, though.

I've made that argument already. Read the rest of the thread.

You have to stop thinking statistically and just think with your heart for things that involve your fellow humans. Otherwise things just get robotic and apathetic.

I've said my piece and I don't think I'm going to change anyone's minds on this so I'll probably exit the discussion now. Things just seem to be going in circles which is disheartening. Just goes to show why things are the way they are, I suppose.