| Libertarians 4 Freedom: Blacks sue The Bachelor over "Racism". Apr 22nd 2012, 07:38
I don't watch The Bachelor, I think it's the worst TV show ever, but this is a story about freedom and the people who invent themselves victims when they don't get what they want. .
"It's the question that has landed the "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" and its TV network, ABC, in the middle of a racial-discrimination lawsuit, which is reportedly thefirst lawsuit filed against a reality show. OMG! There's a little TV station called BLACK Entertainment Television which is free to feature BLACKS ONLY 24/7. Should white people who can't get on one of their shows sue them?There's also UPN which features mostly black programming, after all, Moesha isn't the story of a white cheerleader.
"Both Claybrooks and Johnson, according to TMZ, say that they were treated differently than white contestants when they auditioned for "The Bachelor" at a casting call in Nashville this past August. Johnson says he was turned away and not allowed to audition at all, while Claybrooks says his audition time was cut notably short in comparison to other white contestants, according to The Hollywood Reporter."
Source: Idem
Wow, so these boys assume everyone gets treated the same in Hollywood? If that's the case, why do actresses over 40 have such struggle finding jobs? And why did a big man like John Candy got great roles while other fat actors can't? Could it be that different people are treated, well, differently? Let's ask TMZ:
"Bachelor" creator Michael Fleiss has even acknowledged the problem -- stating long before the lawsuit was filed ... "We always want to cast for ethnic diversity. It's just that for whatever reason, they don't come forward. I wish they would."
Source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/04/18/bachelor-bachelorette-discrimination-lawsuit-racism/#.T5Omy6sV1Gt
See? Even when you're politically correct like Michael Fleiss, sometimes you can't get "ethnic diversity" that fits in with the lead role. But let's say I'm wrong, let's say ABC simply wants to avoid offending some viewers who don't like interracial kissing. So what? I don't see gays and lesbians on The Bachelor either, in fact, now that they have their own TV station (LOGO), gays have had reality shows just like the ones on every other network. In fact, almost every group in America has their own network on cable. There's EWTN for Catholics, CBN for Christians, and Muslims have Al Jazeerah. See? The free market at work.
Moreover, America is not about diversity, it's about LIBERTY. The liberty to start a business, hire and fire anyone you want, make your own dreams come true. I don't like The Bachelor, but it's not my show, it's THEIR SHOW. They have the right to do whatever they want for RATINGS. Without RATINGS, shows get cancelled and people lose jobs.
Luckily, not everyone who comments on Diversity Inc is a politically correct progressive douche.
"is the gov now going to tell people what color and race they must date? The law states that you cannot rent, hire, fire based on race. The law doesn't apply to personal decisions on dating. Even the feds can't force you to date someone by race (unless they are hiding him under a mask of another race). gingerP (gingerpearweb@*****.com)
Posted r"
Exactly! And while I do believe you should be able to discriminate on any basis, I support Ginger for her common sense. Of course, not everyone agrees.
"Ginger, in this case, it is a company hiring actors and actresses for roles in a television show. It would fall under the 'hire' area that you mentioned is in the law. If the individuals were dating off air or on a personal basis, then it would be a different aspect."
#1. Reality stars aren't actors, acting involves memorizing lines and playing a part. Reality stars are hired based on typecasting, they look for a funny guy, a jerk, a complete nut, etc. They're also judging on LOOKS. Do you see any 65 year old women on The Bachelor? I don't.
#2. Actors audition and get parts (or not) based on INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE and the INDIVIDUAL DESIRES of the casting agent, director, producer, etc. Ironically, it's not that difference when you apply for a job at McDonalds and you don't get hired because you have an ugly tattoo on your face or have a bad attitude, the difference is that in the real non-Hollywood world, companies actually pretend that they don't discriminate, and whiny employees sometimes sue when they get fired.
In a libertarian world, you get fired, you look for another job. You don't sue, you don't whine, and you don't demand any "right" to work for working is a privilege, not a right.
Really? Do people want to see the real America? Is there an audience for The Senior Bachelor? And if so, shouldn't that show air on a channel seniors watch instead of ABC? And why make the bachelor a rich guy? I'm sure The History Channel would love "The Trailer Park Bachelor" or perhaps "The Criminal Bachelor" to appeal to fans of drug dealers. Sounds like someone doesn't work in Hollywood and doesn't understand how Hollywood works. Luckily for him, anyone with a video camera can develop his own show and put it on youtube, if it gets a lot of hits, maybe a network will buy it. After all, isn't that how Justin Biever got famous?
"Black men, can't we find something more meaningful to fight about? How meaningless this lawsuit is, its laughable! Cute guys who want-a-be. With all the roles Black men are not getting in movies and tv I guess its worth fighting for to them."
Wow, I didn't know Denzel Washington, Cuba Gooding Jr, Samuel L. Jackson and Will Smith were white. In fact, IMDb has a list of the "Greatest Black Actors", it's a list of 170 people. How can that be with "all the roles black men are not getting"? What roles would that be? The Margaret Thatcher role Meryl Streep played? Should that role go to black woman like Angela Basset? Maybe she can paint her face white just like the Wayans Brothers did in White Chicks. Yeah, let's call it "White British Chick" and let's help Angela learn a British accent.
Even Diversity Inc. admits this isn't an issue in one paragraph: "Ethnic diversity, however, does not seem to be a challenge for the rest of the reality TV segment, which an LA Times article reports to be typically more diverse than scripted sitcoms and shows. The article references Black and Asian participants on shows such as "The Amazing Race," "Survivor" and "The Biggest Loser."
See? Yet Diversity Inc. is incapable of letting race go: "It calls attention to changing demographics—and expectations—among the American audience. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the white population is decreasing and projects that whites will make up less than half of the total population by 2050."
This people are more racist than a Klan cross burning, seriously, even David Duke must be scratching his head. You know, maybe white supremacists should start calling themselves diversity supremacists. Is that what the Klan will do in 2050? March for more white diversity on network TV?
Getting back to the present, I think Diversity Inc needs a new name that reflects who they really are. Perhaps they ought to call themselves Racism Inc. or We Hate White People Inc. or Shut Up Cracker Inc.
In fact, it's a shame that so many Fortune 500 corporations support you, and that you get to display their logos after they gave you hush money. Quite a con you have, "give us money and we won't accuse you of hating diversity."
As a final note, let me leave you with the notes of that famous black man, Martin Luther King Jr.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Keep dreaming, Dr. King. Because today people (it's sexist to say "men") are only judged by their color, race, size or sexual orientation. Today character doesn't mean crap. In fact, today the people who judge people by the content of their character are the ones being called racist.  | |