Well they generally have a solid track record for recognizing the most deserving performances of each year, so to assume they would continue to do so seems reasonable.

lolwat ok yeah that makes no sense. I must have mentally blocked him out or something, I even read it over again after your post and didn't see him listed

Because Straight Outta Compton, Creed, Sicario, Beasts of no Nation, Concussion, and The Hateful Eight are so obscure…

Matt Damon wasn't nominated. Please actually have an understanding of what is being discussed.
Edit: Well sheet.

Or, seeing as these are awards for what are considered the "best" of their category, one should logically assume that they are going to choose people who they think are the "best" of their category.

Yes, all solid to very good performances. If you've been following the end of year lists for everyone/predictions of who would get nominated, you would have noticed that none of those have been in consideration for any list as best actors of the year though.

Exactly, you said they were "good performances" that you enjoyed. There were probably about 100+ good performances given this year though, so apologies if I thought it required an extra level to be in consideration for an oscar.

The whole country has an irrefutable record of racism, what's your point? Why would you assume that Hollywood, by far the most liberal part of America, would still be racist.

If you believed they were great you would have used the word great. Do you honestly expect me to believe you don't know the difference between the two words and thought they were synonymous?

The hypocrisy of your post is astounding to me

I may have been able to better believe you if you weren't so hyperbolic.

Again, you used the word "good" when the nominees are for "great" performances. There is a huge gap in quality to make that jump. Yes, the film system itself is a problem, but the Academy shouldn't have to compromise who they think gave the best performance because of that.

Why would I automatically make that assumption instead of the far more logical one? They are also for different categories so aren't really comparable.

it's not a matter of being a "good performance" though. They have to be a top 5 of the year performance. The problem with your type of mindset is you seem to think as long as there is 1 "good" minority performance it should receive the nomination over a potential great white person's performance. Do you know of a…

Why would you assume that is the case here though? They should simply vote for the people who they think gave the best performances, regardless of what skin color they possess. It's quite disengenuous to have at least 1 slot reserved for a black actor as it seems you want.

Have you considered that they thought Stallone's performances was more worthy?

It's not the Academy's fault if there weren't as many standout performances from Minorities.

Your "But seriously, Blue Is The Warmest Colour and Drive were not Best Picture nominees either. You seriously think that The Oscars care about good cinema?" comment bothers me. Because you consider those great and the Academy didn't they must automatically be terrible at evaluating films? It's not as though those…

Everyone thinks Avery "might have done it". The fact that you have to preface it with "might have" means he shouldn't have been convicted though.

it's almost like "people" is not some entity that represents everyone.