zlacker

My claim is not that they hadn't heard of the movie her, but that while setting up auditions, the chain of thought that would lead them to predict a group would take issue in this very particular way (marcus_holmes's assertion that unconsciously favoring the VA's audition would constitute impersonation) that necessitates the proposed rigor (setting up auditions in a way to eliminate possibility of such bias, and paperwork to prove as such), and consider it worthwhile appeasing the group holding this view, is not so certain to have occurred that the seeming lack of such paperwork can be relied on to imply much at all.

I would go further and say that chain of reasoning is not just uncertain to have occurred, but would probably be flawed if it did - in that I don't think it would noticeably sway that group. Opposed to the evidence in the article, or some forms of other possible possible evidence, which I think can sway people.

> The exact sequence of events isn't as important to the anger as you seem to think, though it may be more important to the legal process.

Less the order of events, and more "seeking out an impersonator and asking them to do an imitation" vs "possibility of unconscious bias when selecting among auditions"

>>Ukv+(OP)
The way you write it makes it sound very complicated, but in this situation, I would definitely think "we better be really careful about who we hire here in order to avoid people making the connection with the movie voice, unless we can actually get Scarlett Johansson to do the voice", and that thought process would take less than 5 seconds.

And it is not unusual at all for there to be things that everyone knows should not be written down, but either discussed only in person, or left implicit. There is usually a few slip ups though, which would come out in discovery.

> "possibility of unconscious bias when selecting among auditions"

I think "conscious but not stated to the actress" is the more likely explanation, that is not inconsistent with this reporting.

For what it's worth, if this does go to court (which I doubt), and there is discovery and depositions, and they don't find any documentation, or get any statements suggesting that this was indeed understood to be the goal, then I would be a lot more convinced.

But I think it's a giant stretch to have the base case be that nobody thought of this and they were all shocked, shocked! that people made this connection after they released it.

>>sander+sm
Wouldn't say it's complicated, but it is a specific point. Attacking claims like "they were all shocked, shocked! that people made this connection after they released it" is meaningless when that is not a claim I'm making or relying on. This stems from me disputing a claim that the VA impersonated SJ/her, because of possible unconscious bias of the casting directors, and the supposed obviousness that they would've set up and extensively documented the auditions in such a way to disprove that.

I'd be more convinced, at least of the fact that it would have even been a good call, if I saw outrage sparked by the possibility of unconscious bias, opposed to what can or has been addressed by other forms of evidence. Claims along the lines of "I'd totally have thought [...]" made in retrospect are entirely unconvincing, particuarly in cases where the suggested thought is not sufficient.

>>Ukv+1W1
I don't know why you started focusing on "unconscious bias", but as I said already, I don't think that's what happened.

>>sander+Gt2
> I don't know why you started focusing on "unconscious bias"

That's what I've been taking issue to from the beginning of this chain[0]. In all but one comment since then I've explicitly specified "[un|sub]conscious bias".

On that topic, would you agree with me that it is not "obvious" that they would predict a group would take issue in this very particular way such that it would necessitate setting up and documenting auditions to prove they have eliminated such bias, and then additionally determine it worthwhile to actually do so?

[0]: https://i.imgur.com/PLBdxmN.png

>>Ukv+1w3
Fair enough. I guess I just shouldn't have responded. I can't really say whether I agree with you or not; I think the whole line of speculation is a non sequitur.