This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"And Iím thinking you werenít burdened with an overabundance of schooling."
11972 members | you are not logged in | 04 December 2020


September 29 2016

Joss Whedon tells Vice why he's putting another political ad in your newsfeed. His most recent video features Jesse Williams talking about why you should vote.

There's a bit of mixed messaging going on in this ad campaign.

First Joss says no to negativity but in the first video Don Cheadle calls Trump a "racist, abusive coward that could permanently damage the fabric of our society". Which I totally agree with, but it's not exactly positive.

Then there's the difference between "Register to vote" and "Vote for Hillary".

Hope it works nonetheless.
I like this video much better than the last. It emphasizes the importance of voting and drops the bias.
As a Canadian, I'm grateful for Joss' bias.
Slay Joss. Slay.
It seems this is an orchestrated "Vote for Hillary" campaign to some degree. I understand the Trump fears, but we're also seeing the consequences of choosing the lesser of two evils for generations. And honestly, I don't see that we have a lesser evil between the two dominant parties. I'm still voting, but I'm off that merry-go-round. We could do so much better than those two.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2016-09-29 19:53 ]
It's not biased to call Trump a racist or a liar. It's a verified fact at this point. We shouldn't misrepresent who Trump is just to seem unbiased. This isn't to say that these videos don't have a bias (Joss made a pro-Hillary super PAC from what I understand), but creating an artificial "balance" isn't the same as objectivity. Remaining silent about the truth to appease the ignorant seems like an unwise more. Objectively, humans are affecting the climate. It's not biased to state this fact. It's just reality.
And what's wrong with bias? These people are not journalists or political science teachers, they're celebrities giving their opinions. We expect their works to be biased and reflect their values, but they're not allowed to take sides?
It seems this is an orchestrated "Vote for Hillary" campaign to some degree.

This thing began with Director Joss Whedon Launches Hillary Clinton Super PAC. I think it is an orchestrated Clinton campaign through and through.

And I'm gonna abide by your desire from the other thread not to bring politics into Whedonesque, except to say that plenty of democrats are voting for Hillary not as the "lesser of two evils" but as the candidate with the most progressive major party platform in history.
This is all becoming eerily similar to Season 4 of Angel.
This is all becoming eerily similar to Season 4 of Angel.

Yep! I mentioned that during Joss's live feed on Facebook. I don't think anyone saw it (or understood it, if they did).

@sumogrip: I agree - through and through. Was just trying to play nice with the modifier.

I don't mind if he (or any other famous person) takes a stance on something.

I just think of it as he's spent much of his life and energy on writing and directing composing, and wandering around in that giant house (or two) of his. I've spent much of my life as a political/social activist and sociology professor who paid attention to every bit of research of events in history and how our political and corporate "leaders" have mucked things up for everyone else. Knowing this stuff is how I made my living for most of my life. So our stances are going to be significantly different in the end.

He's a genius storyteller, but just kind of bright normal when it comes to political analysis!

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2016-09-30 03:33 ]
I liked this video. It reminded me of his 'why do you write strong women' speech. I hope the people this is targeted at watch until the last argument, because it's a pretty great one. It's a good idea to bring up turnout.

I really agree with the comments here that it's pointless to try to maintain 'balance' and always look for 'the other side'. It's even dangerous at the moment, given how much the centre has shifted recently. This is why I think the issue is much bigger than two political parties. When you look at international trends towards nationalism (however ironic that is) the potential results are a little terrifying.

@Nebula1400, I'm interested. What are the arguments for how it can help to vote for a third party candidate?
Good to hear, Nebula1400...that was refreshing.
Joss has also spent his life navigating a corrupt corporate system, having to compromise, so as to do good work. Remind you of anyone?
@Bluelark: The short version:

If a third party candidate gets at least 5% of the vote, their party can qualify for Federal funding to get on the ballot in the next (2020) election. If a third party doesn't run a candidate, it doesn't get to qualify for future funding.

One argument, though, that may say it all is that if people never voted for third party candidates, Bernie Sanders would never have been elected for Mayor of Burlington, VT., for Congress, or for the Senate. Imagine the untapped potential in people who run for office so that they can work to make things better for people, rather than as some career move, or feather in their cap.

Also, the Democrats and Republicans don't represent average people. They pander to the voters, making promises (or in this case, instilling fear), and the day after the election is over, they'll forget about all but the big donors. The two-party system hasn't been around forever, and at some point, it is likely to change. Given how disenchanted the average voter is with both parties, and how Millennials had a fire lit beneath them by Bernie, this is the time to start building toward viable alternative parties, building from local elections.

Third parties need to run Presidential candidates, so voters know there ARE other options. In our local Congressional elections here, there are usually about seven candidates. Most of them seem to have made up the names of their parties. That's the way it is when a party doesn't run a Presidential candidate. In coming elections the Greens and Libertarians will be able to run local candidates with greater public recognition of their party. In my district, before this election, the Greens come in third when they run a candidate. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that we could elect a Green or two locally (especially since my town is a big Bernie town).

Then you build from there. There's more diversity of ideas and policies when you have third party candidates.

It's just too bad they didn't get a chance to debate with the other two. What would it have hurt to see more options?
@Nebula1400, I agree with most things you're saying. But I have to disagree with one thing: "honestly, I don't see that we have a lesser evil between the two dominant parties."

I agree with you that voting for a 3rd party candidate is a good thing in the long term. When you say "the Democrats and Republicans don't represent average people", you are absolutely right.

However, Donald Trump is worse than Hillary Clinton. We have to look at THE issue of our time: climate change. The next 4 years will be crucial. Donald Trump doesn't believe in climate change or doesn't think it's caused by man. Gary Johnson also said he won't spend money in fighting climate change. And Jill Stein has no chance to win.

If you are a progressive/ liberal and live in a red or blue state, sure. Vote Green. But if you live in a SWING state, you should vote for HRC. At least, she acknowledges climate change and says she'll fight it. I don't know if she'll do all that's necessary, probably not, but she'll do something and something is better than nothing. Yes, the Middle East will be wiped out, but at least the rest of the world has a chance!
I do have the luxury of being in a blue state, so I don't face the dilemma of voting for an evil candidate. I do believe Trump was positioned as the Republican candidate by the 1% to scare people into voting for Clinton. The fact is, though, that (as an example) the current administration is doing to immigrants everything we fear from Trump. I doubt that will change for the better under her.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2016-10-02 06:14 ]
I think the election is like Season 4 of Angel in that Jasmine was the bad guy. Eventually the outsiders defeated her, despite the efforts of the establishment (in our case that is Republicans and Democrats). You have to remember that the mainstream Republicans hate trump.

[ edited by Stupendous on 2016-10-02 07:27 ]
@Nebula1400, thanks for explaining. I see why it's valuable to vote for other candidates on a local level, even if they're not likely to win. It's just that with this presidential election there's so much at stake that I don't think it's the time to challenge the two party system. Even if you're living in a faulty house, you have to make sure it doesn't burn down before you can start to repair it.
The latest Gallup poll found that 57% of respondents think it's time for a third party. 73% of independents, 51% of Republicans, and 43% of Democrats currently want to see another major party.

The next Gallup poll will address specific candidates, and asked respondents about the Greens and Libertarians. (I'm a Gallup Panel respondent, and just filled out the questionnaire on Thursday.)

As for this election, there are always going to be dangerous people running, especially if only the Democrats and Republicans get to participate in debates. As long as we're locked into two parties that represent only the ruling class, most of the rest of us should be worried, no matter which of the two wins.
I'm trying to keep my opinions out, but it's proving difficult.

I wish Joss hadn't taken a side because I do care for his voice. In this case, he's very wrong.
I'm very glad Joss took a side. Even if I thought he was very wrong, I think people should speak out. I'm happy that we, his fans, are talking and engaged.

His work has always taken a stand. It's okay to agree or disagree. It's okay to care about these things. They matter.

Joss is a bit like Bernie in a way. Bernie knew his supporters wouldn't just do what he said. We are smart and can make up our own minds. Joss wants us to think for ourselves, but he has an opinion and a perspective. The more perspectives you can see from, the more clearly you can see the world. At least, that's how I see it.
I Tweeted Joss suggesting he get "some folks" together to do an "I'm a Republican but I'm not voting for Donald Trump" video . . . .
Trump IS the third party.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home