Yeah but when the actions are justified by the show, condoned by the show and shown to be correct by the show. Feeling "icky" about it, isn't such a bad feeling to be having.

Then you start thinking about the real world and how people condoned and encouraged these type of actions to real people, often innocent people. How this show was intentionally or not, part of a propaganda campaign. People don't say the words "Guantanamo Bay" much any more but it's still there as far as I know and "icky" doesn't cover the half of it.

I don't want to start repeating myself. I and that other fella explained all this to you already. You're just not understanding.

So statistics aren't real. This is supremely silly.

Votes reflect the biases of the voters, they're not the measurement of objective reality. I'm trying to present a statistical argument here, a very basic one. Statistics covering large numbers of people is used to flatten out our biases in the attempt to present a more objective view of reality and lay bare the biases of these large numbers of people. If you can't agree to that then this has is utterly pointless. You still seem to think this is about individuals judging performance.

We must assume that because the entire argument hinges on it. If you think men are just naturally better performers when it comes to acting then that is an entirely different issue altogether. That' belief would make this discussion completely pointless.

It's the same issue. Preference on art are rife with biases. If someone just doesn't like female lead characters in films, that's a "preference of art" but also a bias. If we assume that acting is something that men and women can be equally good at. Then if that's a common preference, it's a significant statistical bias leading skewed results. It would mean that negative biases against women are leading to fewer acting awards for them.

Okay lets put it this way. Say you have a society that claims to be meritocratic where it's made of 50% ethnic group A and 50% ethnic group B. Yet 90% of the people below the poverty line are from group A. Then you have serious problems in that system. You have biases compounding over time to produce this unequal result. This stuff doesn't happen by coincidence. Coincidences don't add up to significant statistical differences.

If there is no gender bias in the system it should settle at about 50/50 though.

If somehow all gender bias was eliminated from the nominee selection process and say 80% of them over 50 years were men. That would still indicate there being a gender bias. Just not one in the nominee selection. It would mean you have gender bias in casting, in writing etc. You can't take this one final little piece out of a system and examine it out of context of the rest of the system.

Exactly. All biases other than "which performance did you think was best" should be attempted to be eliminated if you are looking to give a "Best Performance" award.

I mean the objective is to try and reduce bias right? I know you can't be purely objective about this but the point of these awards is to single out the "best" performance. Not favorite actor or not favorite movie or other biases political or otherwise that not related to the performance.

I mean there's always going to be bias unfortunately but over time(this being the important term here) it should balance out to roughly 50/50. Provided the number of roles over time is also roughly 50/50. I couldn't say how much time you'd need for an assessment. You'd have to ask a stats guy.

Well if over time it didn't work out to 50/50 that would be suspicious alright. It would be a pretty strong indicator of bias.

edit if someone would be so kind as to explain why if given equal opportunity for roles that this should not settle at 50/50 over time, that would be nice.

Stop where exactly? Where/when should we stop?