Support NeoGAF

[hawk2025]

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.

Because working towards getting that diversity and bringing fair opportunity requires identifying the policy and practical measures we can take, while recognizing the actual counterfactual we would like to strive for that sets a clear, objective target for our goals.

"Diversity" and "fair" are ill-defined concepts within the context of employment. Understanding the baseline we are shooting for (be it population-proportional representation or equal representation -- I'll remain agnostic for the purpose of this point) is essential.

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. That's why such a system is problematic.

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.

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.

 

[Mechazawa]

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.

Eh, I think it has more to do with connections and all these white voice actors being friends and having rapport with each other and the voice directors within the VA community on top of being serviceable "default" voices.

In the grand scheme of things, nobody knows who the fuck Laura Bailey/Nolan North/Troy Baker/etc are.

 

[kamineko]

I understand why fans could find it troubling. I also think it's weird to talk about "hiring the best person for the role" when ND obviously didn't know what the role was. Since they didn't know, it may or may not be telling that they defaulted to an obviously talented, experienced, white VA.

I also think, based on all I've read about/by Druckmann, that he acted in good faith. It's too bad that his decisions happen to align with what many see as a broader issue with opportunities for minorities in the business of gaming.

In other words, I'm not convinced that UC4 gives us insight into these issues in the gaming industry, but it certainly presents an opportunity to reflect on them, thereby improving their visibility.

 

[jackdoe]

Asian characters played by White actors are extremely bad as well. Unlike times when they play Black characters straight, they adopt a borderline racist caricature accent and it infuriates me whenever that happens.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

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.

Yep. It's a shame.

 

[hawk2025]

Yep. It's a shame.

If you are willing to engage -- what should be the objective function we should strive for?

 

[Tovarisc]

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

How can you be certain? Assuming that black VA talent not landing as many roles as white VA talent is because of racism doesn't make it so. That also doesn't mean it isn't because or influenced by racism. Which would make blind auditioning quite interesting experiment as we would actually get to see if race has effect on who gets roles.

Widely known talent like Baker or North would still be in little weird place considering everyone recognizes their voices from mile away most of the time.

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.

Opportunity gotten is role landed? Ah, I looked at missing or getting opportunities as being able to audition and compete for roles. Race of VA talent does play role if VA director is racist towards certain races of people, but assuming it's always and every time the case is also tad insulting as it would brand people in certain position no matter what.

If character is black and VA talent is white or if character is white and VA talent is black should racism be automatically assumed? I don't think it should be default answer as to why skin color of character and VA talent don't match.

P.S. I need look up English language dictionary, "race" sounds so awkward when talking about humans with different colors of skin.

 

[Aaronrules380]

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 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.

Emotion without rationality and logic behind it is worthless and will never lead to a better world. Perceptions and reality aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

[K.Jack]

It wouldn't be a problem if black voice actors got cast as white people as much as white people get cast as black people (because there are sure as hell some really talented black voice actors), relative to the number of black voice actors that are available of course, but IF the situation is skewed in a way that white actors take the majority of white roles AS WELL AS black (& other ethnicities') roles, then THAT is a bit of a problem and a pretty clear sign of some systematic issues still lingering in how the actors are chosen for roles. The whole "white people are just generally so much better that they get all the roles" argument is a horrible one, since it's fairly certain that black people aren't somehow just shittier actors on average and white actors reign supreme. At that point there is certainly something there blocking black actors from getting work. Maybe black people just don't get into auditions because there's some bias against them even before they get to that point. Whatever the reason, to try to argue that it's normal & there's no problem with, for example, 90% of black characters (a number I ripped straight from my ass, just to use as an example) being voice acted by white people is kinda ludicrous. At that point the whole "they just chose the BEST OF THE BEST actors" argument crumbles down completely, especially given that a lot of games don't have anywhere near Pixar level voice acting, so there's a lot of room for improvement.

This is great, especially the bolded, which is the crux of the issue.

Spouting off the handful of times a black person has voiced a white character ain't worth shit to this discussion.

 

[A Link to the Past]

How can you be certain? Assuming that black VA talent not landing as many roles as white VA talent is because of racism doesn't make it so. That also doesn't mean it isn't because or influenced by racism. Which would make blind auditioning quite interesting experiment as we would actually get to see if race has effect on who gets roles.

Widely known talent like Baker or North would still be in little weird place considering everyone recognizes their voices from mile away most of the time.

Nothing more interesting than "oh, duh, of course it was racism."

 

[PIMPBYBLUD]

"Well Shiieeeetttt"

 

[Moon_frogger]

lol at people bringing up outliers like phil lamarr voicing white characters. Come on now guys. please read this over a few times till you are on the same page and in the same decade as the rest of us

The problem is that we do not live in a society where true merit is the only deciding factor. There is still some bias when hiring voice actors, even if their faces do not appear on screen

The problem is that we do not live in a society where true merit is the only deciding factor. There is still some bias when hiring voice actors, even if their faces do not appear on screen

The problem is that we do not live in a society where true merit is the only deciding factor. There is still some bias when hiring voice actors, even if their faces do not appear on screen

alright. we good now? can we stop talking about black people voicing white characters as if that's even remotely relevant to this discussion?

 

[cj_iwakura]

lol at people bringing up outliers like phil lamarr voicing white characters. Come on now guys. please read this over a few times till you are on the same page in in the same decade as the rest of us

The problem is that we do not live in a society where true merit is the only deciding factor. There is still some bias when hiring voice actors, even if their faces do not appear on screen

The problem is that we do not live in a society where true merit is the only deciding factor. There is still some bias when hiring voice actors, even if their faces do not appear on screen

The problem is that we do not live in a society where true merit is the only deciding factor. There is still some bias when hiring voice actors, even if their faces do not appear on screen

alright. we good now? can we stop talking about black people voicing white characters as if that's even remotely relevant to this discussion?

Okay? We know there's a problem, there's nothing wrong with highlighting positive examples like Garcian Smith.

 

[Tillbe]

I felt that Tom Hanks did a good performance in Philadelphia, yes. I'd sooner have an LGB actor portray and :LGB character though. And I would -much- sooner have a T actor portray a T character.

But isn't that the whole point of acting!? The job of an actor or actress is to assume the persona of someone else, get inside a character and find out what makes them who they are, do the things they do.

 

[hawk2025]

Nothing more interesting than "oh, duh, of course it was racism."

That's just plain not true.

Understanding how much of the market is being distorted by racism is essential in drawing up actionable policies.

If the discrimination isn't per se at the casting level, perhaps it's at the character design or art level.

If the discrimination isn't in either, perhaps the correct policy is to fix the availability of acting roles in earlier childhood.

If the discrimination is in both, action at both will be more effective.

If the discrimination is stronger at the design phase, attempting to correct it at the voice casting segment only could actually increase inequality at the design level.


To think that more data would be uninformative is frankly preposterous.

One of the most incredible papers written showing categorical discrimination was only written in 2003, and had actionable and important takeaways in practice. Data and good causal research is always valuable:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

 

[Aaronrules380]

That's just plain not true.

Understanding how much of the market is being distorted by racism is essential in drawing up actionable policies.

If the discrimination isn't per se at the casting level, perhaps it's at the character design or art level.

If the discrimination isn't in either, perhaps the correct policy is to fix the availability of acting roles in earlier childhood.

If the discrimination is in both, action at both will be more effective.

If the discrimination is stronger at the design phase, attempting to correct it at the voice casting segment only could actually increase inequality at the design level.


To think that more data would be uninformative is frankly preposterous.

One of the most incredible papers written showing categorical discrimination was only written in 2003, and had actionable and important takeaways in practice. Data and good causal research is always valuable:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Thank you. Knowing and acknowledging there's a problem is the first step, but there are still many other steps before you get to action. The more you understand about the specific nature of the problem, the more prepared you are to combat it.

 

[braves01]

It's a bit problematic the way the article's concern is phrased. The problem isn't really white people doing VA for non-white characters as much as it is the overall lower amount of work for non-white voice actors. I'm not comfortable with idea that a voice actor has to match the color of a character model.

 

[Tovarisc]

Nothing more interesting than "oh, duh, of course it was racism."

I actually would be interested in factual data like that. You assume that it would show racism with 100% certainty as reason for VA talent casting decisions and if blind auditioning just would back up your assumption what harm it would do? Worst case is that it proves racism as major casting factor and most likely would force change.

I know that such studies have been conducted in other industries and there is data to show varying level of discrimination towards other races of people than race X [default: white]. I just have never been fully comfortable with saying that because this is true there it must be true here.

 

[Neiteio]

I actually would be interested in factual data like that. You assume that it would show racism with 100% certainty as reason for VA talent casting decisions and if blind auditioning just would back up your assumption what harm it would do? Worst case is that it proves racism as major casting factor and most likely would force change.

I know that such studies have been conducted in other industries and there is data to show varying level of discrimination towards other races of people than race X [default: white]. I just have never been fully comfortable with saying that because this is true there it must be true here.

Exactly. More information can't hurt. It could only help make the industry more fair and inclusive.

 

[Xplatformer]

Ok..it would be nice if those JOBS would be given to minorities, but imo it's not a big deal. I'd wish more minorities were involved in every industry. It's a product of our society. It's slowly changing thank goodness.


imo, it is what it is.

As long as I can make a black Shepard I don't care who voices him.

 

[Kinyou]

"Well Shiieeeetttt"

Actually voiced by a black lady

There's also an interesting interview with the actress

 

[A Link to the Past]

Or we can just assume that since no one gave reason one why video games aren't affected by the things that we know, factually, affect television and movie casting, that racism exists in the exact same areas. Casting? Influenced by racism. Agents? Influenced by racism. No reason has been provided as to why it should be treated any differently.

I actually would be interested in factual data like that. You assume that it would show racism with 100% certainty as reason for VA talent casting decisions and if blind auditioning just would back up your assumption what harm it would do? Worst case is that it proves racism as major casting factor and most likely would force change.

I know that such duties have been conducted in other industries and there is data to show varying level of discrimination towards other races of people than race X [default: white]. I just have never been fully comfortable with saying that because this is true there it must be true here.

If you're not comfortable conflating casting in film and television with video games, you'll need to explain why. What is the difference?

But isn't that the whole point of acting!? The job of an actor or actress is to assume the persona of someone else, get inside a character and find out what makes them who they are, do the things they do.

Because casting a hetero actor in a gay role inherently introduces roadblocks that prevents them from offering a valuable perspective. Casting hetero actors for these roles is part of why gay roles are chock full of stereotypes, or simply misunderstanding them - because there's no one on set telling them just how stereotyped the role is.

 

[Reebot]

I felt that Tom Hanks did a good performance in Philadelphia, yes. I'd sooner have an LGB actor portray and :LGB character though. And I would -much- sooner have a T actor portray a T character.

I honestly do not understand this sentiment.

Acting is a profession based around pretending to be someone you're not. Good actors disappear into characters.

Modifying skin color through make up has a charged, offensive history and is obviously not part of this expected skill set. But playing against owns own sexual identification or preference certainly is.

LGBT actors should get more roles in general, and the lack of overt representation reflects innate social discrimination, but there's no need to correlate these roles with LGBT characters.

 

[hawk2025]

We can certainly extrapolate and probably even get to the policy level without further data. We often have to do that in practice.

That wasn't your point, though. Your point was that the data would be useless.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I honestly do not understand this sentiment.

Acting is a profession based around pretending to be someone you're not. Good actors disappear into characters.

Modifying skin color through make up has a charged, offensive history and is obviously not part of this expected skill set. But playing against owns own sexual identification or preference certainly is.

LGBT actors should get more roles in general, and the lack of overt representation reflects innate social discrimination, but there's no need to correlate these roles with LGBT characters.

There absolutely is value in giving LGBT characters to LGBT actors. A quality gay actor is always going to be preferable for a gay role to a quality hetero actor.

We can certainly extrapolate and probably even get to the policy level without further data. We often have to do that in practice.

That wasn't your point, though. Your point was that the data would be useless.

We would come out of it only having the evidence strengthened. We wouldn't learn anything knew, we would just have the affirmation that video game voice acting doesn't operate in a vacuum.

 

[ryanmac]

It would be crazy to login one day and see an article titled: "The Internet has no complaints about video games today"

 

[hawk2025]

There absolutely is value in giving LGBT characters to LGBT actors. A quality gay actor is always going to be preferable for a gay role to a quality hetero actor.



We would come out of it only having the evidence strengthened. We wouldn't learn anything knew, we would just have the affirmation that video game voice acting doesn't operate in a vacuum.

You are wrong. I already argued clearly why and the specifics of what we can glean from additional data, so I suppose there's nothing else to add to the discussion here.

 

[Reebot]

There absolutely is value in giving LGBT characters to LGBT actors. A quality gay actor is always going to be preferable for a gay role to a quality hetero actor.

You need to articulate why. I've given you the contrary argument, and if you want to convince me you'll need a step further than a blanket statement of opinion.

 

[big_erk]

Kratos is white??

i thought he was just an ashy black dude.

Dude, don't do that while I'm enjoying a cold adult beverage. I just spit Boulevard Tank 7 all over my keyboard. Waste of good beer. LOL!

 

[A Link to the Past]

You are wrong. I already argued clearly why and the specifics of what we can glean from additional data, so I suppose there's nothing else to add to the discussion here.

And I think your argument is wrong. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the causes are any different from other casting situations. Film has problems with a lack of non-white characters, a preference by casting directors for white actors, and a preference by agents to support their white clients. Why would it be different here?

You need to articulate why. I've given you the contrary argument, and if you want to convince me you'll need a step further than a blanket statement of opinion.

Because we need quality representation of LGBT characters in media, and this is not accomplished by giving the roles to whatever biggest actor is out there. The role should be given to someone who actually has perspective, not someone who can act like they do.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Because working towards getting that diversity and bringing fair opportunity requires identifying the policy and practical measures we can take, while recognizing the actual counterfactual we would like to strive for that sets a clear, objective target for our goals.

"Diversity" and "fair" are ill-defined concepts within the context of employment. Understanding the baseline we are shooting for (be it population-proportional representation or equal representation -- I'll remain agnostic for the purpose of this point) is essential.

What does any of that have to do with imaginary scenarios of how it should be? Why waste time discussing that? Everyone in this thread can tell you how it should be. We don't need hypothetical for that do we?

whether we are shooting for proportional or equal representation doesn't need a backdrop of shit that is never gonna occur to be addressed. I don't even particularly think breaking it down that far is relevant. What you want is more people of color involved in all parts of the creative process. That is a very simple and easy place to work from.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

It would be crazy to login one day and see an article titled: "The Internet has no complaints about video games today"

It would be crazy to login one day and see an article titled: "No one complains about important issues being discussed today"

 

[ryanmac]

edit: double post

 

[Illucio]

And who cares?

If it's okay for a Black woman to play Hermonie in Harry Potter play it's okay for a white girl to voice a black woman.

Isn't voicing this as a concern just as bad as saying a black person can't voice a white character?

 

[Reebot]

Because we need quality representation of LGBT characters in media, and this is not accomplished by giving the roles to whatever biggest actor is out there. The role should be given to someone who actually has perspective, not someone who can act like they do.

Agreed fully, but you still haven't argued your point.

I'm obviously not advocated for roles assigned based on "biggest," I'm clearly arguing merit.

An actor, as is their job, gains perspective on traits they personally do not have. You could convince me that LGBT actors are inherently predisposed to be better at LGBT roles, but it'd be a hard argument; the necessary corollary is then that LGBT actors are inherently worse at playing straight, which I don't feel.

 

[big_erk]

edit: double post

Deja Vu

 

[ryanmac]

It would be crazy to login one day and see an article titled: "No one complains about important issues being discussed today"

Okay.

You're entitled to feel that way -- but as evidenced by my original post it's pretty clear I disagree. I don't see a reason to debate it.

 

[Neiteio]

I appreciate ryanmac's attempt at levity in a supercharged thread, but I'm baffled how his double post occurred like 12 posts after the original, lol

 

[DirgeExtinction]

So if both a black person and a white person audition for a black character voice acting role, but the white voice actor delivers a better performance, should the role still go to the black voice actor just because he's black? And vice versa.

I say no. Let whoever delivered the better performance do the job, regardless of skin color.

 

[zsynqx]

I appreciate ryanmac's attempt at levity in a supercharged thread, but I'm baffled how his double post occurred like 12 posts after the original, lol

hahaha

 

[Moon_frogger]

You need to articulate why. I've given you the contrary argument, and if you want to convince me you'll need a step further than a blanket statement of opinion.

because these actors are real people, and minorities who are subject to the unconscious bias of the hiring process, a scientifically demonstrable phenomena which results in straight white people getting the majority of roles in the entertainment industry. This is discussed in the article itself so either you didn't read it or your being disingenuous. You don't have any 'counter argument' because you apparently don't understand the argument.

 

[injurai]

And I think your argument is wrong. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the causes are any different from other casting situations. Film has problems with a lack of non-white characters, a preference by casting directors for white actors, and a preference by agents to support their white clients. Why would it be different here?



Because we need quality representation of LGBT characters in media, and this is not accomplished by giving the roles to whatever biggest actor is out there. The role should be given to someone who actually has perspective, not someone who can act like they do.

I'd feel it's more important to have an LGBT writer write an LGBT character. Actors are meant to be directed, and should be cast on their merit of acting. Sure it will be nice to have an increase in LGBT actors playing LGBT roles. But that doesn't mean someone will be the right fit for the character. Screening for sexual orientation should not be the goal in a casting call. The LGBT actor should be able to earn the cast if they fit the role as best seen by the writers.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Agreed fully, but you still haven't argued your point.

I'm obviously not advocated for roles assigned based on "biggest," I'm clearly arguing merit.

An actor, as is their job, gains perspective on traits they personally do not have. You could convince me that LGBT actors are inherently predisposed to be better at LGBT roles, but it'd be a hard argument; the necessary corollary is then that LGBT actors are inherently worse at playing straight, which I don't feel.

I have. Hetero actors have a worse perspective than LGBT actors when doing LGBT roles, generally. Thus, qualified LGBT actors should be given preference for these roles.

Also, that's not true at all. A lot of LGBT people have much of their entire lives where they played straight and/or cis, day-in and day-out. Furthermore, straight people aren't in a weird place in society like LGBT people are, and thus straight people don't need explaining and generally aren't the victims of constant stereotyping/misunderstanding.

I'd feel it's more important to have an LGBT writer write an LGBT character. Actors are meant to be directed, and should be cast on their merit of acting. Sure it will be nice to have an increase in LGBT actors playing LGBT roles. But that doesn't mean someone will be the right fit for the character. Screening for sexual orientation should not be the goal in a casting call. The LGBT actor should be able to earn the cast if they fit the role as best seen by the writers.

In making it a pure "merit" role, you then limit people who don't have the resources to compete to get these roles, especially if major actors are vying for it (of which only few actually are in the LGBT community). As such, not seeking out LGBT actors for these roles serves as gatekeeping, where LGBT can't get these big roles because they don't get these big roles.

 

[A-V-B]

Anyone knows examples of Black actors voicing white characters ?

The closest I can think is Kratos ....

Phil LaMarr? Dude voices everyone and everything.

 

[Reebot]

because these actors are real people, and minorities who are subject to the unconscious bias of the hiring process, a scientifically demonstrable phenomena which results in straight white people getting the majority of roles in the entertainment industry. This is discussed in the article itself so either you didn't read it or your being disingenuous. You don't have any 'counter argument' because you apparently don't understand the argument.

Lol.

You didn't read my comment, did you?

Try finding the line where I explicitly acknowledge underrepresentation and systemic bias.

I've separated out most of them into discrete paragraphs so it should be easy.

I know you'll find it!

 

[BeesEight]

Anyone knows examples of Black actors voicing white characters ?

The closest I can think is Kratos ....

Logan Cunningham voiced the narrator in Bastion. And was damn good at it too.

I think the situation is far more complex than is given credit. I absolutely support more diversity in voice actors but I'd really rather not it be through restriction of who can voice characters based on race. Part of the issue, I feel, is that voice acting in games is such a small component. Few people receive wide spread recognition and so you have the dominance of certain actors to the exclusion of all others.

However, we have very little input into the process of hiring voice actors. I think demanding greater diversity in game design is a better approach. Let's have more characters from all backgrounds present in games and perhaps this will encourage developers to look at a greater diversity of voice talent to fulfil them. But having the same characters which can be voiced by Troy Baker and Nolan North over and over again just encourages companies to hire the actors who are renown for those specific voices.

But it's the skill of a good actor to be able to play someone wholly unlike themselves. Much like how Logan not only played a character of a different skin colour but of a completely different age too.

I appreciate the responses from Fennoy and Lamarr. It's interesting hearing from people who work in the industry.

 

[Moon_frogger]

So if both a black person and a white person audition for a black character voice acting role, but the white voice actor delivers a better performance, should the role still go to the black voice actor just because he's black? And vice versa.

I say no. Let whoever delivered the better performance do the job, regardless of skin color.

again, for probably the billionth time on gaf this month, unconscious bias leads those doing the hiring to think those who look like them to be the better person for the job, even if they aren't.

 

[Bishop89]

Because we need quality representation of LGBT characters in media, and this is not accomplished by giving the roles to whatever biggest actor is out there. The role should be given to someone who actually has perspective, not someone who can act like they do.

So a lgbt actor shouldn't play a straight character cause he has no perspective?

 

[neerg]

again, for probably the billionth time on gaf this month, unconscious bias leads those doing the hiring to think those who look like them to be the better person for the job, even if they aren't.

Sorry I don't buy that. How can you prove, or disprove, unconscious bios?
Even if it is true for some, it can't be claimed that everyone hiring does that?

 

[Coffee Dog]

I have. Hetero actors have a worse perspective than LGBT actors when doing LGBT roles, generally. Thus, qualified LGBT actors should be given preference for these roles.

Also, that's not true at all. A lot of LGBT people have much of their entire lives where they played straight and/or cis, day-in and day-out. Furthermore, straight people aren't in a weird place in society like LGBT people are, and thus straight people don't need explaining and generally aren't the victims of constant stereotyping/misunderstanding.

Given the bolded, you don't have a problem with actors of different backgrounds playing a role as long as they know their shit?

Your position is simply assuming that (the majority of) straight actors are less adaptable to accurate LGBT roles than (the majority of) LGBT actors are to accurate straight roles based on their respective places in our society, no? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but that seems to be what you're saying.