From: allin
The implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within Hollywood and the comedy industry has been a subject of significant discussion, particularly regarding its practical outcomes and adherence to original stated goals. Comedian Tim Dillon shared his observations on the evolution and impact of these initiatives in the entertainment business, noting a shift driven by perceived profitability and audience reception [00:59:39].
The Initial Push for DEI in Hollywood
Around 2016-2018, Hollywood executives began integrating specific language into their discourse, expressing interest in “marginalized voices,” “elevating voices that haven’t been heard,” and “empowering” various groups [00:57:51]. According to Dillon, these executives were characterized as “monsters” who “care nothing about anything” and primarily function by manipulating “pawns on the chessboard” [00:58:05]. The shift towards DEI was seen as being driven by a belief that “there was money there” [00:59:16].
Audience Reception and the Return to Profit Motive
Despite the purported focus on diverse voices, audiences reportedly did not embrace the content created under these initiatives. Dillon stated that “Americans don’t really like to be patronized” [00:59:21]. He further suggested that the television being produced was not what minorities wanted to watch, but rather was “making TV that guilty white liberals wanted to watch” [00:59:27], which ultimately “didn’t make any money” and “kind of faded away” [00:59:31].
As DEI-focused content proved unprofitable, Hollywood executives reportedly “rediscovered the profit motive” [00:59:46], along with a renewed focus on business fundamentals such as “viewership” and “numbers” [00:59:53]. The pursuit of “elevating and empowering” voices did not yield the expected financial returns [01:00:06].
Impact on Comedy and Cancel Culture
During this period, there were numerous attempts to “cancel” comedians [01:00:15]. However, these attempts largely failed because audiences recognized that people, including entertainers, are “flawed, fallible and human,” which is what makes them entertaining [01:00:26]. The public was perceived as preferring authentic, albeit imperfect, personalities over “perfect person[s]” [01:00:29].
Overall Critique of DEI in Entertainment
The critique extended beyond profitability, suggesting that the drive for DEI often serves to maintain existing power structures rather than promoting genuine economic justice or benefits for the working class and minorities [00:54:10]. It was argued that these initiatives could be a “transparent attempt for certain people to keep positions of power” [00:54:27], offering “ceremonial optical choices” like hiring a “female CEO of color” or someone who is Indian, while “the internal structure stays the same” [00:54:40].
This perspective implies that DEI, in some instances, has become a tool for the “establishment trying to preserve itself by shutting out certain ideas and certain people” [00:55:56], through “very optical advancements” that ultimately ensure loyalty to existing power factions [00:56:42]. The argument is that this approach has hindered genuine dialogue on critical issues, as conversations are “hijacked” by identity politics [00:56:31].