African-American Appreciation Thread - Highlighting contributions from our most productive citizens

BlackWaterSails said:
I like a lot of black authors, especially female ones. Even though I'm white, plenty books by African-Americans speak to me. An underappreciated part of black culture, honestly.
Click to expand...
When a demographic is a bucket of crabs, there is something to be said about the ones who manage to genuinely climb out. I feel the same way about obeasts.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Bababooey Warlock, Chin of Campbell, Certified_Autist and 6 others
I've seen more convincing "women" who are obviously troons.
Florida child suffered 'long-term starvation' before death ookook.png
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Niggggger, The bearer of arms, scallion and 15 others
Flaming Insignias said:
for some reason blacks are particularly bad at caring for their young
Click to expand...
The differences between R-selective and K-selective are similar but different when applying them to either an entire species, or to breeds that are arguably within a species. Learning about R and K-selective types within human subsects is some maddening shit, making calling it a rabbit hole very apt.

To put it in the simplest of TL;DR terms, K-selective humans generally do their best to monogamously mate for life and put their all into successfully rearing one or two strong, healthy, socially adept, intelligent children. R-selective types are promiscuous, often breed through rape, shit out as many babies as possible, and maybe one or two will survive long enough to breed themselves. Think of R-selective behavior as impulsively and violently throwing shit at the wall, assuming that something will eventually stick, but it's really not your problem if nothing sticks anyway.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: scallion, Kiwi2Shoes, Dolomite and 7 others
Nonconsentual Pronouns said:
The differences between R-selective and K-selective are similar but different when applying them to either an entire species, or to breeds that are arguably within a species. Learning about R and K-selective types within human subsects is some maddening shit, making calling it a rabbit hole very apt.

To put it in the simplest of TL;DR terms, K-selective humans generally do their best to monogamously mate for life and put their all into successfully rearing one or two strong, healthy, socially adept, intelligent children. R-selective types are promiscuous, often breed through rape, shit out as many babies as possible, and maybe one or two will survive long enough to breed themselves. Think of R-selective behavior as impulsively and violently throwing shit at the wall, assuming that something will eventually stick, but it's really not your problem if nothing sticks anyway.
Click to expand...
Now, I fully comprehend that there are humans that take r-selective habits in childrearing, but the story we see here just seems to be pure evil. There's being inattentive, and then there's starving a toddler to death.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Nonconsentual Pronouns
7E80107C-5EA5-4859-B7D0-71C302609942.png

Keep in mind, both Young Thug and Gunna just were arrested for racketeering and gang related crimes.

Nonconsentual Pronouns said:
When a demographic is a bucket of crabs, there is something to be said about the ones who manage to genuinely climb out. I feel the same way about obeasts.
Click to expand...
Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell books come to mind.

Outside of politics, Larry Elder’s upbringing is actually a very inspirational story to read, especially with how in the beginning of his life he always used to resent his father until he died the last time he saw him when he was an adult getting ready to start his radio career.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Essay2414778, The Decimator, Wendy Wheelchair and 8 others
That article from Takimag might be worth to share, the idea of hiring more African-American actors to meet the diversity quotas had created some unintended consequences at the Hollywood lolcows.
Hollywood’s been Jewish from the get-go, but “racial loyalty” never trumped the bottom line. People who lose money for the bosses get canned, Jew or not. Similarly, Hollywood might be leftist in its racial politics, but in past decades adherence to profitability always took precedence. The desire to artificially elevate the newest black one-legged transgender half-breed Eskimo flavor-of-the-month was always kept in check by the box office. If Jamaal the hopping dickless Yupik didn’t pack the seats, he was out.

But that changed in 2020 following the videotaped death of Wheezy Metherson in a Minneapolis street. Hollywood decided to toss the rules that had kept the business afloat through depressions and recessions great and small. Race would now trounce the bottom line. Success, profit, and growth would be of secondary importance; skin color and that alone would dictate hiring and retention.

The major streaming networks, at the time the “future of Hollywood,” created an apartheid system in which blacks got the jobs and whites (including Jews, who, for the purposes of the new apartheid, were marked with the scarlet W) didn’t. This apartheid was formally codified in summer 2021, with the announcement of numerical hiring caps for whites and quotas for blacks.

This was new territory for Hollywood: racial caps and quotas not tied to ability or profit potential. But it was also new territory for American racial schemes like affirmative action. Up until 2020, such con jobs were sold to the public as a way of assisting the underrepresented. Evening-up the numbers. Giving a chance to those who’d previously been “shut out.”

But since at least 2001 (the first year journalists and academics began crunching the numbers) black actors have been overrepresented on TV and in movies. By 2009, that overrepresentation had spread to TV commercials. So this wasn’t like blacks in STEM or women in firefighting. The caps-and-quotas scheme would benefit a group that was already represented beyond its percentage of the population.

This wasn’t a defensive action, it was an offensive one. It wasn’t pro-black, it was antiwhite. Whereas affirmative action (especially in education) also dings Asians, Hollywood’s apartheid would help everyone but whites. It was a system in which keeping whites out was more important than bringing nonwhites in. It was the first major U.S. racial scheme that wasn’t sold as necessary to help the underserved. It was an instrument of punishment, a reckoning, a bill come due to be paid by people with evil skin.

This new apartheid’s been in effect for a little under a year now.

So how’s it going?

Here’s a view from ground level. And I’ll add, hate Hollywood as you may (“Filthy pedo Jew faggits! Let ’em burn!”), it’s rather to your benefit to understand these dynamics, because if Hollywood’s “offensive apartheid” were to succeed, you may just see something similar coming to your profession.


On the other hand, if it’s failing, understanding why can help prevent the spread of such malignancies.

And the good news is, it’s failing. Holy cannoli, is it failing. And in ways that only racial fanatics with zero understanding of basic economics couldn’t have foreseen.

I’ll give you the broad strokes. The cap on white hiring drove up the asking price of the white actors who’d achieved some level of name value before the cutoff. Due to the rationing of white roles, talent agents, concerned solely with finding work for white actors they already represent, stopped allocating resources toward developing new white “ingenues.” So no new (read: cheap) white blood was coming in. An artificial shortage of white actors was created; what few roles there were for whites went to already established performers (if you can only cast one whitey, make it one with name recognition who can attract viewers).

The time-honored tradition of casting a well-known white actor alongside an undiscovered “potential next-big-thing” white actor ended. The limited slots had to go to marketable names.

With established white actors (and their agents) understanding that they were now the only game in town, with the door closed to new, young, “I’ll work for pennies just for the opportunity!” competition, salary demands skyrocketed.

At the same time, black actors, who be gettin’ all the roles, demanded (along with their agents) that no white actor could make more than a black, because that be racist. Hence, even though there was now a glut of black actors, their salaries rose along with white salaries, lest Netflix or Amazon be accused of payin’ black folks less.


This dynamic occurred behind the scenes as well, with the few veteran white/Jewish showrunners who were allowed to stay commanding large salaries, as they were the only competent ones left, and their expertise was needed to train roomfuls of affirmative-actioned novices (who of course demanded equal pay because, you know, “racism”).

You can imagine how expensive this became for the streamers.

And not just for streamers. Indie filmmakers outside the streaming world felt it too. In early March, Rebecca Green, producer of the indie horror hit It Follows, went on a tweetstorm about how indie filmmakers could no longer afford the recognizable actors that their financiers demand because the streamers were throwing around so much money. Actors with marquee value were doing too well under the apartheid system to slum it in indie films (independent filmmakers are more likely to attract “name” actors when a labor glut depresses wages, forcing actors to lower their asking price).

Those apartheid-caused wage increases could only be sustained as long as the streamers had no catastrophic economic woes.

And at the end of April, whoa, did they get woes. Netflix went full Hindenburg, taking a $54 billion hit in market value, becoming the worst-performing stock of 2022 in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100. The company lost 200,000 subscribers with a projected loss of another 2 million subs in the next quarter. Add to that a 67.8% plummet in daily page views, and you get a panic.

There’s no one single reason for the crash (and to forestall your coming tweets, no, it had nothing to do with conservative outrage over the “pedo film” Cuties. That controversy was from summer 2020. Netflix had a great final quarter that year and an impressive growth period in early 2021). The main reason given by Netflix itself and seconded by many analysts is that its production costs were too damn high (roughly $18 billion per year, an astronomical amount that forced Netflix to increase customer subscription fees).

As Vulture noted, Netflix’s policy of “throwing all the money it can” at race hustlers like Shonda Rhimes led to “cost inflation in Tinseltown, with Netflix bidding up the price of talent at every level.”

Worse still, those inflated salaries weren’t leading to the production of content that could attract or keep enough subscribers to justify the expense.

Plus, as Bloomberg pointed out, Netflix lost subscribers internationally. First quarter 2022 wasn’t just a disaster in the U.S.; Netflix got slaughtered in Europe and Latin America as well.

Obviously, no Bloomberg or Vulture analyst is gonna dare blame any of this on the “diversity apartheid.” But I sure as hell will. Those inflated apartheid-caused salaries coupled with crappy all-black programming emanating from the quota-writers-of-color crippled the company. Note how the markets where Netflix fared worst this quarter—the U.S., Europe, and Latin America—are markets where European beauty standards have traditionally been exalted (Latin America is arguably the most unapologetic media market when it comes to favoring white features over black or indigenous).

Will the Netflix crash hobble the new apartheid?

We don’t have to ask. The answer’s yes. Resoundingly.

Last week, the liquidations began. First to go? The “diversity hires.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: AllCatsAreGrey, mr.moon1488, Butcher Pete and 8 others
The funniest part is the quotas don't even match the Demographics of the USA.

If you go by commercials and TV then over half of America is black, mixed couples are the norm, and everyone can support a family of 4-6 on a single wage working at the supermarket while living in a 4 bedroom house with two cars.

Nice to see that Hollywood and the streaming services are finding out diversity isn't their strength.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Essay2414778, mr.moon1488, Certified_Autist and 12 others
Jet Fuel Johnny said:
The funniest part is the quotas don't even match the Demographics of the USA.

If you go by commercials and TV then over half of America is black, mixed couples are the norm
Click to expand...
Someone on Reddit made a graph comparing the race of actors in the 2022 Super Bowl commercials versus the general population:
1652645714266.png

Blacks extreme overrepresented, whites slightly underrepresented, and latinos extremely underrepresented. I assume the marketers wanted to include as many black people as possible, leading latinos to get the short end of the stick since they have less cash to spend than the whites.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Elizabeth Woolridge Grant, Wendy Wheelchair, The Decimator and 11 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back