zlacker

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+(OP)
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+Fx
> 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+0A1
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.