Many of us have just completed a OWC inspired by 'Jaws' which resulted in an unpredictable adverse effect on shark populations due to a shift in human behavior.

Recently I watched 'Captain Phillips' which did a good job of making the Somali pirates not some charicature ignorant fools or the USNavy SEALs not some bloodthirsty goons.

In fact, the vogue thing in HWood these days seems to be portraying antagonists as victims themselves.

Many films opportunistically villify some population, ethnic, sexual orientation, mental health, socio economic, or religious community.
Advancing technology itself is frequently vilified in film and story.



With this in mind I have two questions.
One, do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad?

Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons?

Thank you.

1. No

2. I don't think so. I certainly hope not.

It's up to writers to entertain or enthrall. We all spend most of our lives making judgements. Whether we like it or not. But it's not the writer's job.

That said, I won't be writing any pro nazi or white power stuff. I'm not that stupid.

R

Art is art. fiction is fiction. I have no interest in being politically correct (within reason that is...like R said). I just care about writing good stories from an honest place.

so in that context...my answers are No and No.

I hate political correctness... despise it even. Especially the ignorant hypocrites that perpetrate it.

Thing in the news recently about some rich American guy, owner of a baseball team, said something about a woman hanging out with black guys in public. That's all he said.

Then Snoop Dog goes on line with a racist rant against the white guy and people get behind him like it's OK.

Weird world we live in.

Actually, what was said on the audio recording was:

Quoted Text “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?” Sterling asked. “You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games,” he explained. “I’m just saying, in your lousy f******* Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people.”

(from http://www.yourblackworld.net/.....ack-people-to-games/)

And what Snoop said was that he was a "bitchass redneck whitebread chickenshit motherfucker."

So I'm not really clear on what you're talking about, Bowcott. Maybe you need to revisit the definition of "whitebread." But if you're looking for hypocrisy, claiming to despise "political correctness" and then complaining about the "racist rant against the white guy" would about fit the bill.

--

1. I don't think writers have an inherent responsibility to avoid characterizing one group or another as evil/bad/weak/whatever. I do think writers have an important place in society and I think that what they write should be in some way consistent with their moral view of the world, in its overall impact. I don't really agree with Rendezvous or Penoyer, actually -- there's no magical separation between "art" and the rest of the world. Kubrick pulled Clockwork for a reason.

I guess it would all come down to context, for me. When movies are silly -- Olympus Has Fallen, True Lies, maybe Red Dawn -- I suppose they might as well be xenophobic and caricaturing as well. Maybe I wouldn't say that in a perfect world, but oh well.

To me, movies that purport to be more serious are actually more questionable. I think it's way more weird that we have movies like Captain Phillips that "show both sides" -- or, as you say, Ray, portray antagonists as victims themselves -- when the stories are still written by a North American/Western/whatever writer, with that perspective. Unlike bad action movies, those movies pretend to understand both sides, even though they're still just North Americans making up stories for North Americans. Not to say that such things can't be done well, or that I think Captain Phillips in particular was irresponsible. But sometimes, maybe Edward Zwick should stick to making movies about Americans.

2. I don't think so, actually. I'm not sure I've ever written an antagonist that was in danger of being irresponsibly represented, actually. I usually write monsters, or people in the same group -- spies vs. spies, ex-military vs. military, whatever. Maybe the ethical question is why I do that.

I didn't complain about the racist rant towards the white guy, I merely pointed out the hypocrisy in people complaining about what the white guy said, when what Snoop said is actually worse. Snoop Dog is a racist... but it's OK, because he's hating on another racist.

Redncek is a racial slur... just like nigger. Personally, I don't care about any of them, they are only words. However, hypocrisy does bother me. People should be complaining just as much about what snoop said as that other guy said... or nobody should be complaining at all. They certainly shouldn't be getting behind the moronic rant from snoop dog.

Calling it a “racist rant” is complaining about it. Unlike the original statement, Snoop’s rant is obviously not motivated by racism (though it is obnoxious, but that's fine). Your description of the original statement – “…something about a woman hanging out with black guys in public. That's all he said” – combined with your free accusations of racism when it comes to Snoop’s response, seem to paint a fairly clear picture of what you’re concerned about.

I don’t agree that the word redneck is a racial slur “just like” the word nigger, but that’s beside the point. Your contention that Snoop hurling a bunch of insults that include a racial slur is “worse” than someone in a powerful position actively discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group is, to me, exactly the PC can't-see-the-forest wrongheadedness that you’re referring to. What, the person who says a “bad word” is automatically making the worse statement?

Quoted from Heretic Calling it a “racist rant” is complaining about it. Unlike the original statement, Snoop’s rant is obviously not motivated by racism (though it is obnoxious, but that's fine). Your description of the original statement – “…something about a woman hanging out with black guys in public. That's all he said” – combined with your free accusations of racism when it comes to Snoop’s response, seem to paint a fairly clear picture of what you’re concerned about. I don’t agree that the word redneck is a racial slur “just like” the word nigger, but that’s beside the point. Your contention that Snoop hurling a bunch of insults that include a racial slur is “worse” than someone in a powerful position actively discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group is, to me, exactly the PC can't-see-the-forest wrongheadedness that you’re referring to. What, the person who says a “bad word” is automatically making the worse statement?

He was actually saying that he doesn't like the idea of this woman being seen in public with black men that she is fucking. Maybe she's an ex, I haven't followed the story. Not sure why he said it and I don't care. You're clearly turning his words into something else though.

Here's a news report on your boy, Snoop, talking about Romney in a 'typically non-racist' way: http://www.examiner.com/articl.....-not-vote-for-romney

Quoted Text "The number one reason cited for not voting for Romney is because 'He a white n****.' Likewise, Obama will receive his vote because 'He a black n****," CBS added.

He's going to vote for him just because he is black. That's clearly an admission of racism. Yeah... I get it... that's just fine... it's just fine because he isn't a white man saying exactly the same thing about a black man. How eloquently put too. Talk about the dumbing down of the youth... but it's better that way, I suppose, a dumbed down youth don't ask too many questions. Snoop Dogg is clearly a racist... just like most other black men, Asian men, Russian men, French men... We don't need much of an excuse not to like each other... it just so happens that prejudice is switched out for racist when it comes to colour. It's fine to hate on the French because they smell, have big noses, were cowards and eat snails... but not on a black man for whatever reasons you've found not to like them. It's even fine to hate white people... that's apart of the reason we have Muslims in our own country preaching about how shit it is... then they fight against extradition

I see clearly how Snoop is a racist... I don't see how you can disagree on the 'redneck' thing being a racially derogatory term towards white people though. Who else is the word used for? Are chinese people ever called rednecks? Redneck refers to the colours our necks go in the hot sun... and is reserved solely for white people. A black man using that term to a white man is a racist and it should be a criminal offence, just like it is if a white guy says nigger. Not that I agree it is a crime for either word to be said. But... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As far as I'm aware, in regards to the law in my country... one can say that they don't like the idea of their ex wife being seen in public with a black man. What they can't say is, I don't like the idea of my ex wife being seen in public with a nigger. Then that is a criminal offence. Because they are using racially derogatory language with the intention of some type of incitement to drama. I haven't looked up the exact law and I don't care to. So yes, the way I see it... Snoop Dogg is actually the only one using racially derogatory language. The baseball team owner simply doesn't like the idea of this woman being seen in public with black men. I'm sure nobody would have batted an eyelid if he said.. I don't like the idea of you being seen in public with fat, sweaty, balding men. Or even if a black guy said, I don't like the idea of you being seen in public with a white man.

When I was growing up there was a lot (A LOT) of black on white racism. It was in the song lyrics... white boys are idiots, pussies, white women are slags... I grew up with that shit and remember it well. It isn't much different today. Black men look at white men as being inferior, dirty (because of our penchant for pork), indeed a portion of the black community actually believe we evolved from pigs... maybe because that's how we tasted whenever they captured a wayward adventurer from the Victorian era.

There is bigotry on both sides and I have seen it first hand. In the gang of blacks I ran with they/we only targeted white victims. White. I wasn't seen as white... I was seen as one of them. In truth, I was just surviving. But I've seen a lot from both sides. I've hung with black racists, which is pretty much every black guy I've met. I've also hung with white racists, which is pretty much every white guy I've met. Women are racist too. Black women don't like the idea of their men going with white women, it makes them feel inferior. The light skin thing. Amongst the black community, the blacker you are, the uglier you are. I've actually heard them cussing each other out on their level of blackness numerous times. But that's what's real. What is also real is the black youth targeting white victims because they believe they are meting out some type of retribution for the slave days. Purely because the education is so one-sided. They're not taught that the first slavery is a universal thing... they're not taught that the actual slave owners were the rich Deys in Africa, profiting from selling the people. Nor that the first black slave owner in America was black. They are taught a one-sided portion of history and it pollutes their minds. Right away it places these poor kids into a mindset where they feel inferior. They were conquered and turned into slaves... which is far from the truth. Slavery was a worldwide thing. Not sure what people think happened to white people that were shanghaied to places like the New World (America) and Australia... they weren't set free to build a normal life for themselves... they built the country and worked in perpetual servitude. Many of them couldn't read and write and were kept till old age, never knowing any better. Yep, dumb white people... or 'rednecks'. White Slaves, too dumb to cover up when working the fields. Interbred, like many slaves were. Slaves were money, breeding big business... and that was two-hundred years before blacks were introduced as slaves. Also around the time the Barbary pirates were taking white slaves in their hundreds of thousands to work in Africa.

In Africa there were Kings, profiting from the slave trade and it built Africa into a great country. Indeed their cities rivalled and outdid London and Paris for their opulence. Their science was also on a par and we stole quite a lot from them. That isn't taught in schools though.

What this does is utilise a system that actually encourages racism while all the while pretending to be against it. The black youth feel inferior from the get go and many of them feel angered and fall into crime. They are made to believe they came from dumb cave-man type villages... that the white man was technologically superior. Which isn't exactly true. We were more barbaric, treacherous and inclined to warfare but technology in war isn't everything. They tended towards astrology and medicine. So, being left uneducated, or worse, educated in the wrong way places a chip on their shoulder and makes them hate white people. This breeds racism. They don't like us and it shows... so white people have to contend (subconsciously) with feeling guilty and knowing that these kids have a chip on their shoulder, creating fear.

Fear is seen as weakness. I've seen it. Fear breeds violence. There are three types of people and we can be any one of them at any one time... there are victims, predators and people that don't care for either. What happens when a person turns into feeling like a victim though is actually encourage the predator in all of us. Even in people that have felt like victims previously. A victim might as well lie down and offer their throats like a submissive dog. It's a vibe.

So with all these white people walking around scared of black people and black people having this chip on their shoulder... both through poor education, or deliberate propaganda... it creates racism.

Teach people about true black history, not the white man bullshit version and this will create eventual equality.

I don't care for movies that show gratuitous violence against women.  It's a bit of a double standard, because violence against men doesn't bother me as much. But it bothers me watching a man commit violence against a woman, so I'm wary of writing scenes like that.

Another area of concern is historical accuracy. It annoys me when stories completely alter history because the creators of the story have an agenda. If it's done for fun, it doesn't bother me. So Inglorious Bastards doesn't bother me. Anyone who thinks Hitler died in a Paris theater needs some more schoolin. JFK, on the other hand, did bother me. The film is very well made and entertaining...but too many people took their history from it, almost saw it as a documentary, when in fact it butchered history.

Anyone that actually believes Hitler died at all just after the war needs some schooling.

Ray,

No to both of your questions.

But, I do like the idea of complexity in characters. The question is how much do you explain why someone is the way they are.

I find the decision of what to include quite interesting. The Nightcrawler script, currently been made as a film and one of script shadows favourite, had quite a powerful character but we virtually know nothing about him during the script. He is what he is and that's all we get. Still seems to work.

May be it's an amateur desire to explain everything that we add too much, well I do.

Yet, if the character is to do something specific, or what appears to be out of character, I feel that needs to be set up otherwise it harder to buy into.

Quoted from RayW One, do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad? Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons? Thank you.

1) I think sometimes a writer has the responsibility to do just the opposite by painting a community (or a subgroup) within that community as bad. The church is not bad, but a priest within it can be.  The web is good but the many things done on to perpetuate horrible deeds such as trafficking is bad.


2) Define antagonist in today's world. It was once a man in black binding a lady to the railroad tracks with a wild smile of pleasure on his face. We knew who he was. Society has redefined and is still defining good and bad. Gordon in WALLSTREET was a cut throat bent on destroying people but we lined up to like him.

Shawn....><

For me:

1)  I firmly believe that my characters should have organic motivations.  Even the "bad guys".  So, as a result, they tend to be sympathetic in some shape or form: even if they're still the villains of the story per se.  Also - I don't personally see political or social issues in pure black and white, so I don't portray my premises that way, either. That's just plain boring. Taking Bittersweet as an example: the Deacon's the main bad guy.  But he truly believes that he's ridding his flock of children who are possessed and poisoned by evil.  In other words - HE feels he's doing the right thing.  And if it was true, he WOULD be the good guy. While I don't have an ACTIVE responsibility to be PC, I don't think it would be "right" to create and propagate a cartoon stereotype of anything or anyone.  Not only is that unfair to them, it's just plain creatively lazy.

2) Well, with one recent feature that I co-wrote (not posted on SS), there was an opportunity to make the two main "bad guys" a gay couple.  I (and my cowriter) decided not to.  Mainly because it worked better by going in a different direction.  But also because I frankly didn't feel like creating an "evil gay couple" for political reasons.

My five cents.

"The villian should feel like the hero in his own movie."

I remember hearing a number of people having said this so I don't know where it comes from but its very true. However when it comes to the questions in the OP, I'd say the writer has an obligation to the story first, ethics come in 2nd. If a story for whatever reason calls for a stereotype or broad brush strokes so be it. Nothing wrong with that,

That's pretty much why they're called protagonists and antagonists. Whomever your main character is (whether it's the hero or villain, by general definitions), the antagonist is the force that's against them. If Auric Goldfinger were your main character and the movie were from his point of view, James Bond would be the antagonist.

As for ethics, I don't take them into account for any reason. Personally, I think they're a bunch of made-up rules that keep changing over time and if you write to strictly adhere to them, your writing will come off as false.

  Well, I don't take PC morality into account in a story.  

But if I, via my own ethical judgment, feel that portraying a person or a class in a certain light is abusively stereotypical, I don't do it.  

For two reasons:

1) Cliché characters are lazy writing.

2) Stereotypes *can* be toxic concepts that shouldn't be propagated.

I use the term "abusively stereotypical", because people can and do sometimes fit stereotypes.  For instance, I wouldn't be against creating a flamboyant drag queen.  As long as that's not *all* the character is in the story (and assuming that the character's not just an extra that's in the script for two whole seconds.) . The issue for me is that good stories are about ideas. (And characters you care about.) I'd argue that some ideas - and underlying premises - *should* be outright rejected.  There's lots of toxic concepts out there: everything from racial and gender stereotypes, to the more subtle idea that every single businessman or corporation must be depicted as monstrously evil.

About the only case where I would play a character as black and white is in an outright satire.  For instance, my antagonist in The Nigerian Job is totally evil.  But that's meant to be camp.

Quoted from RayW With this in mind I have two questions. One, do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad? Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons?

No.

and

No.

It's my opinion that people take movies, tv shows and novels way too seriously. In this day and age I do not expect a reasonable person to take anything shown in entertainment mediums as fact. People have book and the internet to educate themselves. A writer is there to write something entertaining, if that is racist, unethical who cares, it's not there to be taken seriously, it's only there so you kill some time.

my 2 cents.

Quoted from RayW ...do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad? Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons?

Interesting debate Ray.

1. Yes. I would agree that as writers we do have that responsibility - mainly due to the 'unjustly' part -- I'd be quite happy to have Roma Gypsies as the antagonist, but I'd take care that I'm not painting them in a false light - that I'd be able to justify how I'd drawn them for the story.

2. Tricky one -- but I do agree that the antag has really got to be as good (or better) that the protag - no use making them weak, else there's no real victory. So, I may never have re-written due to the above, but then as I think you have the responsibility, I'd have written accordingly in the first place - I like to think. And I can't think of any ready examples of stereotyping making the antag more challenging or interesting.

To be honest, when you put it in black & white like you've done, I can see a lot of people answering 'No' to the first question, like they have done. But I don't really see a lot of people writing like that - deliberately depicting people or technology as bad with no justification - I know one of the OWC scripts took a negative on phone technology, but that was woven into the story, and I think was used justifyably.

1. Yes. This is particularly clear where you use the term "community". Unjustly portraying an entire community would be racist propaganda. Not only will it probably not get made, it will be one dimensional and crap.

2. Sort of. In a very short film called Nick of Time, several black actors applied to play the role of a thief (In the film a thief steals a bag from a train stationand when he looks in it finds there is a bomb inside..he blows up).

The rest of the cast were white, so to me it would have looked badly racist to cast a sole black guy as the thief, but then you get the strange dichotomy that you are selecting on racial lines and someone is losing work because they are black. Can't really win.

Glad you made the 2nd point, Rick, and you are obviously aware that it works against your first point. That's why I would caution against over-sensitivity and political correctness because it can also lead to the absurd. For example, it's unfair to only portray Muslims in film as extremists or terrorists. But at the same time, films aim to be relevant, and the reality of our world is what it is. So while I would hate to see Muslims typecast, I also think it's ridiculous when films are afraid to portray an Islamic terrorist for politically correct reasons.

I also prefer to avoid politics in film, unless it's a period piece. In every American film or TV show, the bad guy is an over the top conservative who talks about Jesus while he steals money from children. It doesn't remotely reflect reality,it reflects the caricature of painted by the opposite side. It's best to keep contemporary politics out of film if possible. And it's smarter marketing.

Another example would be the working Irish-American from South Boston. Typically he'll be portrayed as a heavy drinking brawler. The criticism of that should be that with all the Boston movies over the last 20 years that's become a little too familiar. But as there is much truth to the stereotype, there should be no complaint about it being unfair. If there is a basis in reality, I don't think a stereotype should be off limits. Parisian French are portrayed a certain way, Italians a certain way, etc. If it's based on something accurate, it should be within bounds.

It's an intriguing question, and one I think about often. I tend to be surprised by how many artists simultaneously desire to move, inspire, and entertain with their work, but then immediately back down from the idea that art can encourage any form of negative, lazy, ignorant, or malicious thought. Frankly I think most artists are only comfortable taking responsibility for the positivity their work generates, while sweeping any questions of negative influence under the rug by proclaiming, "It's just a novel/movie/song/etc. Nobody takes it seriously!"

I find it hard to believe anyone can genuinly accept this narrow-minded excuse. Do the images, words, and ideas we encounter on a daily basis influence us, either positively or negatively? Of course they do! Otherwise there would be nothing compelling about stories because we would take nothing away from them. If filtering information we might find morally disagreeable, useless, or nonsensical out of an otherwise positive experience was as easy as some seem to think, Nike shoe sales would not have skyrocketed as a result of aggressive advertising that hawked them as "cool" and promised that they would increase the wearer's athletic talents or their abilities to fit in. Coolness is a construct and the other claims make no logical sense, so why would people buy into the hype? Because our minds are complex and malleable and human beings operate at the intersection of logic and emotion, rather than logic alone. I can be told statistics all day regarding the fact that a white man is three times more likely to own a gun than a black man (just made this up for the sake of example), but if the majority of representations of black men in movies and television are gangbanger thugs who rob and kill, I'm a lot more likely to cross the street to avoid an oncoming black man than a white one.

Having said that, do writers have a responsibility to avoid imbuing prejudices and stereotypes into their work? That's a tough question. In an ideal world I would say that writers have an obligation to remain as open-minded, enlightened, and empathic as possible, because they are inherently telling someone else's story and a myopic point of view will only make your storytelling skills suffer. But I wouldn't say that translates into a responsibility. The appreciation of art is democratic; you have the right to craft a two-dimensional stereotype as much as the audience has a right to criticize you for it. And, as I believe the wheels of social justice/equality do turn, albeit slowly, it follows that a forward-thinking society's art will progress, and it doesn't matter quite as much what a fringe contingent of angry racist sexist homophobes write into their screenplays to take out their rage on the world at large because they are dying out and their words will one day go completely unheeded.

As to the second question, I have not changed anything in my own work that I can remember, though there are things I have written in the past that I no longer endorse. One example is a short I wrote in college about a knight who arrives at a castle only to discover the princess he is meant to rescue is exceedingly ugly. At the time I thought it was a satire of our society's increasingly high standards of beauty, and the importance placed thereon, but looking back on it I realize I too often went for the easy joke and made fun of the ugly princess rather than sympathized with her. If I meant to do anything with that short I would give it a rewrite to focus the humor on the knight's inability to deal with the shattering of his superficial definition of glory and bravery instead of making the princess pathetic and awful just because she is not beautiful.

good post Maarow.

About slavery thing.  Check the origin of word "Slave"  It comes from arabic language "SLAV" nowadays Russians  when they transported them to arabia as slaves.  So slaves have nothing to do with blacks originally so stop propaganding anti-white bulshit.  And by the way that clippers owner is Jewish so here you go.

INTS, yes, don't worry, we all remember that you're an anti-Semite. Please educate yourself and/or go away.

Dustin, Snoop's not "my boy" (though Gin and Juice was my jam...) and I didn't condone his comments, this specific one or in general. You've brought up a lot of stuff that I don't feel like arguing about (though if that's a cop-out, I'm happy to continue via PM rather than further adding to the little B plot we've got going in this thread), but let's just agree that the way education has framed historical slavery and racism is a major problem and that everyone would benefit greatly from a "truer" education on black (and general) history.

That doesn't, however, change my belief that what Sterling said was fundamentally racist -- I used the words "discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group," which I think is a reasonable description of the suggestion that black people shouldn't be at the games or featured on her Instagram -- while what Snoop said was, at best, superficially racist. To me it's the same as the difference between "nigger" and "redneck." Redneck is a conditional racial slur; it's aimed at a specific "race" (obligatory "race is a social construct" disclaimer here), but rather than describing the whole race describes members of that race with certain characteristics. "Nigger," on the other hand, describes an entire "race" -- doesn't matter who you are or how you act, if you're brown, you've probably been treated to that word sometime or other in your life. Sterling was called a "redneck" not because he was white, but because he had exhibited specific characteristics -- in particular, being a racist douchebag -- that Snoop characterized with the word "redneck." When Sterling targeted people, he was targeting them for the colour of their skin. When Snoop targeted Sterling, he was targeting Sterling for his behaviour. That is different.

---

Kev, I agree with what you and Rick have brought up to an extent, but I'm wondering as well about context? I have two questions:

1. Of course it's the case that movies shouldn't shy away from having, for example, an Islamic terrorist as a character. But to what extent does the content of films in general at that time affect this? What I mean is, is it okay for every action or thriller film to have Islamic terrorists as the bad guys? And if not, how does that line get drawn? Shouldn't the incidence of Islamic bad guys in films somewhat correlate to the incidence of Islamic bad guys in real life? Or no? Not sure about this one, interested in your thoughts.

2. Do you think it's possible for films to be apolitical, or to "avoid politics," as you put it? You've pointed out a trend with bad guys in movies -- even The Muppets managed to draw the ire of Fox News a while ago with their oil baron antagonist or whatever. Films don't exist in a vacuum and pretty much all of them will offend the political sensibilities of some -- what does it mean for a film to avoid politics?

Maarow, well said.

Finally, just wanted to point out that what Janet brings up is important -- nobody should be taking "PC morality" into account when designing their story. "PC morality" is made-up bullhooey. To the extent that one considers ethics to be important to the stories they tell, it should only ever be personal ethics.

Quoted from Heretic ...but let's just agree that the way education has framed historical slavery and racism is a major problem and that everyone would benefit greatly from a "truer" education on black (and general) history.

Of course. As far as I am concerned, poor education (outright lying) is the reason for a lot of troubles we have today.

Quoted from Heretic That doesn't, however, change my belief that what Sterling said was fundamentally racist -- I used the words "discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group," which I think is a reasonable description of the suggestion that black people shouldn't be at the games or featured on her Instagram -- while what Snoop said was, at best, superficially racist. To me it's the same as the difference between "nigger" and "redneck." Redneck is a conditional racial slur; it's aimed at a specific "race" (obligatory "race is a social construct" disclaimer here), but rather than describing the whole race describes members of that race with certain characteristics. "Nigger," on the other hand, describes an entire "race." Sterling was called a "redneck" not because he was white, but because he had exhibited specific characteristics -- in particular, being a racist douchebag -- that Snoop characterized with the word "redneck." When Sterling targeted people, he was targeting them for the colour of their skin. When Snoop targeted Sterling, he was targeting Sterling for his behaviour. That is different.

When Snoop targeted Sterling he did so to release pent up racial aggression. Redneck is a white slave word. It might have been overused and abused since then, just like the colour 'nigger' but it is representative of our white slave days. Snoop Dogg knows that. He knew exactly what he was saying and so does a lot of the black community. Seems only white people that don't understand where the word came from.

I agree though that what Sterling said was racist too. I just feel that Snoops reaction is hypocritical. Snoop should not be allowed to respond to racism with racism. And, even worse, people should not get behind him like it is okay.

I see a double standard. It's okay for black people to be racist... here's what I see:

Quoted Text "Like my niggas from South Central Los Angeles they found that they couldn't handle us; Bloods, CRIPS, on the same squad, with the Essays [Latino gangbangers] up, and nigga, it's time to rob and mob and break the white man off something lovely"; "The Day the Niggaz Took Over"; Dr Dre, The Chronic, 1993, Interscope Records, under Time Warner in 1993.

Quoted Text "Bust a Glock; devils [whites] get shot. . . . when God give the word me herd like the buffalo through the neighborhood; watch me blast. . . . I'm killing more crackers [whites] than Bosnia-Herzegovina, each and everyday. . . . don't bust until you see the whites of his eyes, the whites of his skin. . . . Louis Farrakhan . . . Bloods and CRIPS, and little old me, and we all getting ready for the enemy"; "Enemy"; Ice Cube, Lethal Injection, 1993, Priority Records, Thorn EMI; now called The EMI Group, United Kingdom.

Quoted Text "Rhymes is rugged like burnt buildings in Harlem; the Ol Dirty Bastard. . . . I'm also militant. . . . snatching devils up by the hair, then cut his head off"; "Cuttin Headz"; Ol Dirty Bastard, Return of the 36 Chambers: the Dirty Version; 1995, Elektra Entertainment, Time Warner, USA.

Devils are white people. This is all allowed and even applauded by white people. Why?

**edit** Something else being forgotten here is that Sterling's phone call was private. Snoop made a public racist statement. Which is worse... according to the law anyway. As far as I'm aware it is fine to be a racist privately, the law only has an issue when you do it publicly.

Chris, as far as politics, the key word is try. For example, I'm ok with a film exploring an issue. I'm just wary of trying to push agendas where it doesn't belong. Like if we have a thriller about terrorism, do we always need the Dick Cheney caricature? That's contemporary politics being inserted for no reason. It's annoying, and considering the more than half the country voted for that ticket, it's bad marketing. But often Hollywood just can't resist doing it purely for partisan reasons. That kind of thing spoils the film.

As far as sensitivity to certain groups, I think it should be weighed when writing the story, but we should not let political correctness determine the decision. In the end, the biggest question than should be asked is whether the portrayal is based in reality. In Saudi Arabia, they make films which show Jews eating Palestinian children. A Hollywood example might be the film that portrays the conservative politician as being completely heartless and evil. If these things don't reflect reality, they don't belong.

So I think we're on the same page. We don't want to reach to easy stereotypes, that can be lazy writing. We should try to consider if we are being fair in our portrayal. And while there is no way to completely avoid the political, we should avoid taking easy cheap shots and try to not spoil a film with contemporary political messaging.