While I generally agree with Joss' political views, his contributions to the election season were fueled with a lot of negative feelings. I understood his frustration, but it's just nice to see him come out with something of a much more positive nature. Not attacking anyone's views, but trying to show support for a good cause. This video was perfect.

[ edited by SuperScuba on 2017-05-17 15:04 ]

SuperScuba | May 17, 09:03 CET

So, also not attacking anyone but-- I feel like this isn't so much a film as a 2:55 advertisement for Planned Parenthood.

libradude | May 17, 12:54 CET

@libradude, good point. If this isn't an advertisement then I don't know what is. However, is it possible to be a short film AND an advertisement? I'm leaning towards no. Still, it's a really good ad, haha.

SuperScuba | May 17, 13:30 CET

It's a pity that Joss doesn't invest more of his energy and creative talent into screenwriting and filmmaking. I love his older shows and used to be a huge fan of his, just like everyone else on this site. But in the last couple of years, I kind of moved on. I wasn't blown away by his Marvel stuff (it doesn't really stand out for me among all the other comic bok movies from Marvel ) or by anything else he did since the end of Dollhouse/Cabin in the Woods.

The last nail in the coffin for me was his political campaigning in the last couple of months. I'm not even from the US, but I still feel immensily annoyed and tired by the constant preaching of various celebrities and famous people about certain social and political issues. You have your right to have and publicity present your oppinions, of course, but you must also take into account that a part of your fans and the general public might disagree with you - either partially or completely. And the more you push, the more you rub people the wrong way, the more you come across as smug and preachy or even hypocritical... the more alienated some of your audience becomes from you.

I'm talking in general terms that apply to any kind of actor, director, singer, athlete, bookwriter, scientist etc. But I will say one specific thing regarding Joss himself. The moment when something broke in me was when I visited his Twitter page some time ago and saw that he has become fully immersed in politics and non-stop political campaining. What made things worse was a tweet aimed at Nicole Kidman in which he basically compared her to a dumb plastic doll, just because she dared to say her oppinion that the people of US should unite behind their new elected president. That tweet was very unclassy, dissapointing and hypocritically sexist... especially coming from the self-proclaimed feminist and champion of women's rights. But the whole tone of his Twitter feed was very negative and combative and that's why it turned me off so much.

I wasn't a fan of Joss for his worldviews and political oppinions, even if I agreed with some of them, but because of the imaginative worlds he created, his layered characters, complex stories and resourceful scripts. That's why I miss the times when he was keeping himself busy by showrunning 3 fantastic TV shows concurrently instead of writing things about politics on Twitter... What he did before united different people, what he does now divides them. But the times have changed, sadly, and all I can do is move ahead with them by finding new things that bring me joy and entertainment. However, I hope that Joss' work will again fall into this category one day...

[ edited by Anuris on 2017-05-17 20:17 ]

Anuris | May 17, 14:12 CET

This is a nice film. In my opinion, if an artist wants to lend their skills to causes they believe in, even if they're divisive, they can go right ahead. Yes, there's a big risk that they'll alienate their audience, but it's their choice. Clearly Joss has already weighed it up.

The thing I wonder, though, is whether stuff like this is that effective. My instinct is that as his usual method of metaphor-laden storytelling has more potential to put across the messages, but that all depends on opportunity and timing. I remember he talked about this in an interview once - something about always putting the story before the ideals because otherwise you're just writing propaganda. It's interesting that he's now going down this route. Maybe he's decided if he's going to make something to put forward a message he might as well be as open about it as possible?

Bluelark | May 17, 16:17 CET

I'm glad Joss is taking his responsibility as a citizen to speak up and create art that influences people seriously. Kind of embarrassed and turned off by artists who don't speak up in the current political climate. I thought this was a good little film promoting a vital service. Kudos!

IrrationaliTV | May 17, 17:28 CET

Let's be clear-- all of Joss's stuff is deeply 'political' (this includes Buffy, Angel, Firefly, etc.). Just because he's being more overt nowadays doesn't mean it hasn't been there all along.

libradude | May 17, 18:56 CET

Agree with Libradude. A *lot* of people in the U.S. are speaking up politically, for fear that if they don't, things will get worse and worse. There's no reason for people who have our attention anyway not to use that attention for what they feel are positive purposes.

Shapenew | May 17, 20:33 CET

All of Joss's stuff is about fighting the Big Bad, even when it feels like you are outnumbered and there is little hope. All you can do is try, using the skills you have.

Joss is trying to fight the good fight. Now some of his "fans" dislike that he is walking the walk. If you are a fan of Buffy yet not supportive of health services for women, I don't know what to say. Were we watching the same show?

Much of society doesn't want people to act like Buffy. They want us all to sit down and shut up. But we can't do that. We have to have courage. Buffy was inspiring. I think Joss was inspired by her too.

Wesbi | May 17, 20:39 CET

Although at times I fear for his well being - going by his twitter feed, which maybe isn't that good of a measure - I'm liking this Joss better than I've liked him in a long long time. We need artists like him to get angry, speak out, make noise. He's putting his name and career on the line and the shit he gets thrown at him online now is unbelievable. How he puts up with it, I don't know. More power to him.

Caroline | May 17, 23:23 CET

I pretty much agree with what Anuris said. The Kidman-tweet was nasty and something I would expect from a troll - not from an established Hollywood superstar. Let alone Joss Whedon. That's not how you will successfully sell me your political views. Quite the contrary, actually.

Regarding celebrities who like to campaign their policital beliefs, I think that while they certainly have a right to speak up, they also have an obligation to society to be more educated on the matters, they speak about, than the common man. They should never close their minds to the opposing side, but instead always be thinking about and listening to their arguments. Because most of the time neither side is 100% correct - and a lot of the times there isn't even a possibility of being 100% correct. Pro Life vs. Pro Choice is a great example of that.

Sahjhan | May 17, 23:52 CET

Fuck. I just saw the Nicole Kidman tweet. I'm disappointed. That was a low blow.

I had already stopped following him on Twitter. It was too much negativity. In times like this, we need to be level-headed and not yield to bitterness and despair.

I have no problems with artists making political statements. Politics is all around us. They are citizens too and they have a platform. However, with that comes a new layer of responsibility. Joss should take a cue from people like Emma Watson and Shailene Woodley, who are also really passionate about their issues but are more positive and have a more effective way of communicating.

Anyway, Planned Parenhood is an excellent cause and I'm glad he's supporting it.

Ricardo L. | May 18, 07:10 CET

When Hollywood people make political statements, it's often in a way that is all about themselves. That does more harm than good. I would far rather see/hear something that is honest, well thought out and well presented even if I completely disagree with it.

Unfortunately that experience is rare, since most people who disagree with me are obvious freaks who know less than nothing. (But I digress.)

Some of the situations in life that Planned Parenthood helps people to get through are intense, stressful, very personal and very private. But you have the chance to take yourself and your choices more seriously than ever before, and to realize (i.e. make real) how much your life really means. Unless you or someone very close to you has been through something like this, where all of a sudden your entire future and those of others around you is at stake, you might not grasp what I'm talking about here--it's so personal.

But that is exactly the territory that Joss has always dealt with--most especially in Buffy, which is why I watch that series again and again.

[ edited by mozzarellademon on 2017-05-18 14:23 ]

mozzarellademon | May 18, 08:22 CET

This is a beautiful video. I'm the parent of daughters, the friend of a woman who lost her mid-30s daughter to breast cancer because she didn't have health coverage and was diagnosed too late, and resident of a state that takes an incredibly backward approach to women's health care and sexuality. I am grateful to Joss for bringing his talent to bear on such important issues.

ActualSize | May 18, 21:21 CET

Anuris said:

"I still feel immensily annoyed and tired by the constant preaching of various celebrities and famous people about certain social and political issues."

While art and entertainment can often inspire, teach, and give us the happies during a bad week/month/year/dark-period-in-our-lives, in the grand scheme of things, amongst our hierarchy of needs ? Health care, political/worldwide stability, and throw in "not having your country being embarrassed or mocked by most of the rest of the world due to who's leading it and putting his foot in his mouth" as a bonus (or buddy-country, given that I'm Canadian)...are FAR higher up on the list of priorities/of things we need to be concerned about and keeping up to date on, don't you think ? The issues Joss and other celebrities have been speaking out about are far, FAR more important than any TV show or film. IMO. Unless one has decided to check out and not pay attention or care about what's going on in the world or are leaving it up to others to decide or an imagined higher power if you believe in one. *shrug*


"It's a pity that Joss doesn't invest more of his energy and creative talent into screenwriting and filmmaking."

Why is it a pity ? The man can multi-task -- he's done so plenty in the past and for all we know, given whatever's going on behind the scenes, he may currently be juggling multiple projects in development, in addition to creating ads and campaign vids.

"You have your right to have and publicity present your oppinions, of course, but you must also take into account that a part of your fans and the general public might disagree with you - either partially or completely. And the more you push, the more you rub people the wrong way, the more you come across as smug and preachy or even hypocritical... the more alienated some of your audience becomes from you."

The man is rich beyond the majority of the world population's wildest dreams, beyond what the majority of us will ever experience. As long as he's smart with his money and investments, he has little to nothing to worry about financially. That ? Buys him the freedom to say whatever he pleases without worry. I imagine (and assume) that he values his ability to speak his mind on issues he cares deeply about over trying to tip toe around/walk on egg shells for fear of upsetting a portion of his fanbase, the general viewing public, or studio heads. Nor would I EVER want him to give a fig. Art SHOULD be upsetting and challenge people's world views. He SHOULD take advantage of the privelege of his platform. What an absolute WASTE of an opportunity it would be to NOT, IMO.

I would LOVE the leverage to tell off some people in my working world, to put some of 'em in their place (hah, not that any of 'em would listen and I have no real authority anyway). To call them out on their bullshit. To NOT always have to remain diplomatic when situations under any other real life circumstance outside of being on-the-job would benefit from just being blunt and REAL with people (while still being at least fair and hopefully KIND, as well).

I hate this notion that people in the public eye or anyone who works for big business must watch what they say. It smacks of corporatism. They're free to say whatever they please and we're free to disagree and debate.

I got nothin' re: the Nicole Kidman slight. :( I'm not gonna abandon ship over one slip-up/said-in-anger-and-frustration tweet, though.

I get that she was trying to help heal the country/trying to smooth things over at a tumultuous/divisive time, but I also get Joss' frustration at her for what you could see as trying to handwave the problem away, instead of simply getting out of the way and letting everyone vent their anger. No we DON'T have to get behind or support that president or take a wait-and-see approach and just say and do nothing in the meantime.


"I wasn't a fan of Joss for his worldviews and political oppinions, even if I agreed with some of them, but because of the imaginative worlds he created, his layered characters, complex stories and resourceful scripts. That's why I miss the times when he was keeping himself busy by showrunning 3 fantastic TV shows concurrently instead of writing things about politics on Twitter..."

I loved that period too, but this is bigger than our favorite fantasy and sci-fi worlds.

"What he did before united different people, what he does now divides them."

Watch the Planned Parenthood video again. To me that looks like something intended to unite, not divide.

[ edited by Kris on 2017-05-19 04:32 ]

Kris | May 18, 22:26 CET

Supporting Planned Parenthood can never be uniting: not when done by Joss, not when done by anyone. I get that most folks who frequent this website wouldn't characterize Planned Parenthood's raison d'etre as wholly and irredeemably evil, but a significant minority (10-30%, probably) of America do. We can all unite behind other things, but there will always be a silent (or not so silent...) minority who will never see Planned Parenthood as anything other than the flagship organization of the abortion industry.

jclemens | May 19, 00:07 CET

@Wesbi - Fantastic point. I totally agree.

Charlie | May 19, 02:04 CET

"Now some of his 'fans' dislike that he is walking the walk."

You're on very shaky ground if you're suggesting some of Joss's fans aren't "real fans." He's been very vocal about politics since during the election. He was well aware that would inevitably alienate some of his fans, but he considered it a price worth paying to do anything he could to stop the rise of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

Broadly speaking I agree with Anuris. I was a huge fan of Joss in the past, and will continue to follow his work in the future but like Anuris said, times have changed.

Toivo | May 19, 05:21 CET

Also Mark Ruffalo, Jane Fonda, Susan Saradon, Rosario Dawson, and a whole slew of other celebrities. They've gone to Standing Rock, Flint, Michigan... and doing some incredible stuff. I don't know if he's still doing it, but Mark Ruffalo had been providing water for neighborhoods in Detroit where the city had turned off the water for residents. This is walking the walk. This is positive stuff. I've found that if you treat the worst, trolling right-winger (or anyone who doesn't agree with you) with kindness, they will start to respond more positively, even if they still don't agree with you. Treat EVERYONE the way you wish to be treated.

You never know when they might be on the same page with you. That's what's important.

As for the PSA, it's competent. Not sure that things like this do anything but preach to the converted, but it is well done.

Nebula1400 | May 19, 10:44 CET

Anuris expressed my thoughts and feelings more eloquently than I ever could.



As did Caroline. Every single word of this applies equally well to Adam Baldwin, who also does a lot of charitable work for some very good causes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Amrita | May 19, 20:11 CET

In my experience, the people who say that celebrities should keep their opinions to themselves only say that because they happen to be expressing opinions that they disagree with. It's pretty transparent.

vampmogs | May 20, 03:00 CET

Bang on, vampmogs.

Kris | May 21, 16:58 CET

I also don't understand why fans feel that celebrities somehow owe them something, as if fame and success is solely dependant upon a fandom's efforts. It's a bizarre and entitled attitude - Joss doesn't owe us anything, he has the right to free speech the same as anyone else.

insistondoubt | May 22, 09:16 CET

If you are truly a free speech advocate, then you would support Joss' right to say what he wishes, when he wishes, whether you agree with his speech or not. You do not check that right at the door simply because you are a Hollywood director or filmmaker. There is no different standard for Joss than there is for me, just because he has more money.

Dana5140 | May 23, 06:47 CET

While I agree, I don't think a different standard would (or should) be about money. It should be about influence. Like I have stated before, I believe those, who can reach a lot of people, have an obligation to be well educated on the matters they speak - and especially preach - about. More importantly, we as a society have an obligation to not give the power to influence us to those, who will abuse it or disregard the responsibilities that come with it.
This is of course an utopian way of looking at things. Nobody is implementing this in real life. And before we look at what the people in Hollywood say or do, we should probably look at the crap we let the politicians get away with. Because if anyone should be obligated to know what the hell they are talking about before opening their mouths, it's them. Sadly, that's not the impression I'm getting.

[ edited by Sahjhan on 2017-05-23 23:12 ]

Sahjhan | May 23, 17:10 CET

Those are two different matters, Sahjan. The public clearly needs to educate itself on what the politicians it votes for stand for. This goes without saying. But this has nothing to do with whether or not Joss Whedon- or Adam Baldwin, with whom I have profound disagreement- have a right to advance their thoughts. They do. So do I. So do you. Nothing more need be said, really. I fight the battles that matter to me, and I hope all of us do that as well, Joss included.

Dana5140 | May 24, 06:29 CET

That's not what I meant. Yes, the public should educate itself on important matters which includes the viewpoints of politicians, but what I am actually talking about is that I believe being able to influence a disproportionate number of people puts a responsibility upon you to not run your mouth without thinking first. You think, you read, you think again, and then - maybe, carefully - you speak. To me that is the price - one price - of your fame. And this goes for anybody who is famous and has above-average influence. I already mentioned Hollywood and politicians, but it's the same for any random person who has 20.000 followers on social media. Sorry, but the rules are different for you. Or atleast they should be. It's that famous quote from "Spider-Man" all over again. "With great power comes great responsibility." No doubt about it.

If I speak my mind without thinking first (which I often do, because I tend to think about things while discussing them) and without having the full picture - not to mention all the details of the picture - it's bad. Because even I, whose opinion matters to pretty much nobody, can influence people. But if someone, whose opinion is heard and appreciated by millions of people, does it, the outcomes are potentially horrendous. Especially if you not only speak your mind in passing, but actually campaign for - or against - things.

I believe one of the most important things in a discussion is to look at things from your opponent's point of view. Try to figure out why their opinon differs from yours and don't assume it's because they are wrong or because they are bad people. Realize, that contrary opinions can simultaneously have value and that opinions that clash with your own do not necessarily need to be fought.
More importantly, by getting a better understanding of the people across the table you will be able to tell with greater precision than before when they actually are wrong - and dangerously wrong for that matter - which will allow you to pick your battles wisely and focus your energy.

So yeah. Whedon and Baldwin and everybody else can talk about what they want. No doubt about it. But if their reason for voicing their opinions is to strive towards a better future for the total of society, then it's in their own best interest to very carefully consider what they are talking about and whether or not they actually have any clue of the matters they are discussing. Because that, too, is a big problem of political discussion: Everybody participates, but hardly anybody has any idea what they're talking about. (And this absolutely includes the politicians. Just look at the current US president. Whatever you may think about him, you can't tell me he's well read on the majority of things a president should probably know about. Unless he - for some reason - hides it extremely well.) It's like discussing mathematics with someone who doesn't know that three plus two equals five. Or even worse: they think it equals seven and they are actually prepared to fight you on this. It's ridiculous and a big waste of time. Read a book, get your facts straight, and then, if you still have something to add, come back to the table. But do your homework, first.

Sahjhan | May 24, 08:36 CET

There comes a time when everybody has to draw the line and NOT keep their opinions to themselves. As far as I'm concerned, this election and the disastrous result of too many people either sitting on their hands and doing nothing or deliberately spiking the vote from spite regardless of the clear evidence of what the outcome would bring was that line. It's gone well beyond being just a matter of "difference of opinion" now: people either stood WITH their country and their people, or they stood AGAINST both - period, full stop, end of story. Glad to see Joss and other celebrities standing with us. We need to remember well those who didn't, and won't.

Rowan Hawthorn | May 24, 11:18 CET

Sahjan, let me ask a truly critical question: what influence does Joss really have? I do not mean this in the negative way it might be read, but in the end he is a producer and creator of entertainment, and people (such as those on this site) follow him and love his work, but does he actually influence my thinking? Or all of our thinking? I think we follow him not so much because of his influence, but because we- inside of us- already hold ideas and beliefs that align with his (clearly, not all, but a lot of us). Does Adam Baldwin influence people or does he simply draw like-minded people? I am very careful in my real life to listen to the other side, to gather information- heck, I teach evidence-based medicine. I had a colleague and friend who was a legislator in South Dakota who introduced the legislation to prevent trans kids from using bathrooms based on the sex they identify with. I profoundly and vehemently disagree- but I listened to him and his arguments, and understood his perspective, even if I could not change his mind nor he mine. It would be easy to devolve into name calling- but that helps nothing and pervades the internet. Anyway, I am not sure entertainers are influential per se, but they certainly attract those who are like-minded and engaged enough to follow.

Dana5140 | May 24, 12:07 CET

Mark Ruffalo shared a PSA for Planned Parenthood on Twitter and I thought it was relevant to share here:
https://www.crowdrise.com/mansplaining-planned-parenthood

Ricardo L. | May 24, 12:10 CET

@Dana5140:

The potential influence of somebody like Whedon can be analyzed a number of ways.

1. First of all, it's not about him in particular. While he might be somebody whose fanbase consists of people well into their thirties and above, whose own opinions might already have been formed to a high degree, there are others who can reach a much younger, much more influenceable audience. Those people might also be role models and icons to their audience.

2. Furthermore, if people cannot be influenced, then why bother at all? Why try to educate them if there's zero chance of actually succeeding? I don't buy that. I find myself influenced - both positively and negatively - by the opinions and the output of others all the time. I think people who are well spoken, have their facts ready, and know how to form an argument from them, will always be able to influence others. The same goes for people without most - or even any - of those tools. Like those, who are preaching to the choir. Which would actually be my next point.

3. In a way you have already answered your own question, because the maybe most important point is that people are constantly looking for positiv affirmation. That's certainly the case for me (no matter how I may occassionaly come across on this message board). You want to be in the right, you want people to tell you that you're in the right, and you want people to appreciate you for being in the right. I think that is one of the basic pillars of how society works: Be in the right, or people will reprimand you. And if they do, there's a good chance you'll change your way of thinking, because - in general - you want people to like you. So if people, influencal people, tell you that you are in the right, because they are speaking along the same lines you do, and if they get great support for those opinions while others, who hold contrary views, might be criticized for their beliefs, you have not much incentive to (continue to )question yourself and your viewpoints. Now you personally might do so, because you're intelligent and possess a decent amount of common sense, but not everybody is like you. Some people - many people, I think - take stuff at face value. They go with the popular opinion of their own little world - or maybe they go completely against it if they're that kind of person. But they don't evaluate. They don't think. They disregard the fact that opinions can be partly right (or wrong).
So yes. Maybe the correct way of putting it is this: First, the more popular and unchallenged an opinion, the more important it becomes to be absolutely sure of what you're doing when supporting it. And second, the more popular you are, the more people you reach, and the higher they regard you and your mind, the more value your individual support carries. So think before you speak.

The first thing I like to do when presented with an idea is disagree with it. Both in my personal- as well as in my professional life I play devil's advocate. Especially if nobody else seems to do so. It's not because I believe an idea to be completely false and stupid, it's because most ideas aren't completely right and smart. They're flawed. So if it's "A or B" and five people answer "A", the way I tend to look at it is: "But look at all the stuff "B" brings to the table - and here are all the things wrong about "A". Now convince me of your choice. I might join you, but I won't join you just for the sake of it."
Obviously I'm not perfect at this. I'm very much flawed myself and often I listen to my gut-feeling first and everything else second. But the thing I've described is what I try to do - and in my better moments I actually achieve it. I think that's important, because things are complex and you seldom get them right on your first try. Especially politics. All that complexity and people try to discuss them in tweets. It's a joke.

Just look at what Rowan Hawthorn was writing. So yeah, looking at Trump's campaign it's easy to dismiss those who voted for him. But I think it's too easy, because there are so many elements to this topic:
Did they vote for Trump? If so, why? Because of his track record? Because of what he said? Because of how he said it? All he said? Parts of it? Which parts? Did they believe he was going to follow through on his promises? Which ones? ...
Did they vote against Clinton? If so, why? (and so on)
Furthermore: How can half the people stand against the people? This notion makes no sense to me. This isn't a minority. It's 50% of the voters. They have just as much right to shape and change the country as "you" do. Antagonizing and pigeonholing them instead of looking at people individually and trying to find out what motivated them and what they saw - and see - in the respective candidates is - in my view - horribly thoughtless. It's like people are actually striving towards another civil war. Seriously? That's your solution? "Let's be enemies"? Sure this sounds SO much better than: "I'll go out of my way to try to understand my neighbour even if my initial reaction to his beliefs and actions is nausea." Jesus...

Sahjhan | May 24, 17:18 CET

Sahjan- I might beat you at the devil's advocate role. Certainly here, eh? :-)

I do not disagree with your analysis in the main. I simply think that people are in some ways not as influential as we give them credit for. Perhaps it is my age- 64. But I always investigate my thoughts for bias- in the sense that I seek alternate viewpoints. Our nation is polarized to the extent that there is a good chance a person running for office in Montana might be elected even though he just was seen actually beating a reporter. Because he is on our side, you know? I give JW credit for taking a stance, acting on it, and taking the hits that go along with it. HE does not need to. He has all the money any human could ever need, so why put himself out, why take that risk? Because it matters to him. We can never know how much we what we do influences others. After all, at a less critical level, Joss was not prepared for the outcry that occurred when Tara was killed, right? So we, you and I, are on the same page looking at this issue with good hearts and differing outputs. I tend to sometimes think like Charles Barkley- who pushed back at being held up as a role model. He is and he is not.

Dana5140 | May 25, 13:01 CET

This short brought me to tears.

I was particularly touched that in the first world we're shown a girl (initially in the background) seeing what's happening in front of her and desperately wanting to help -- to make a difference -- who finds her voice and her power in the second world. She becomes unlocked, herself. Clever title.

The girl I once was very much remembers a world where it wasn't so easy or accepted for girls to use their voices, and the woman I am now is glad that today's girls AND boys can see stories like this of worlds where they too can be unlocked and make a difference with their peers and in their world.

I never tire of such stories (or of writing long, run-on sentences...).

[ edited by roofpig on 2017-05-25 23:14 ]

roofpig | May 25, 17:00 CET

Sahjhan: I can say that those people are standing against the country and the people because they have been doing just exactly that for the past several decades, and continue to do so. How else do you explain the fact that they're willing and eager to condone the possibility of outright treason by the sitting POTUS? And as for "striving towards another civil war": again, I have heard right-wing self-proclaimed "patriots" - Trump's core base - calling for just exactly that for years, and they continue to do so, loudly, proudly and explicitly. Their reason? Because "I" believe "I" have just as much right to shape and change the country as "they" do. This is not opinion, it is not fantasy, it is not "pigeonholing". It's calling it just like it is. This is reality. I didn't tell my neighbors and fellow former Americans "Let's be enemies"; they went out of their way to make themselves my enemy, and they succeeded. At this point, I no longer care what their motivations are. We've tried to "play nice" long enough, and it's past time to stop.

Rowan Hawthorn | May 26, 08:09 CET

It is pigeonholing... you're painting 63 million people with the same brush based on what you've heard ~some~ right-wingers say. You're also assuming that everyone's ideals are 100% aligned with who they vote for. There's also plenty of people who voted for Trump that since have realized it was a mistake. And there's plenty of people that probably voted for him because they got duped by some of his promises that sounded like a good thing (like working hard to prevent jobs from leaving the US...sounds like being *with* the country...). You're assuming that 63 million people hate the other 66 million people. That's certainly not true.

Also the video is quite nice. I've liked the political videos he's made, whether I agree with them fully or not (in this case, do agree). I agree he has the right to express his opinion, I just get so disappointed when he does it in a hateful way, like with the Nicole Kidman tweet, or the rhino tweet. Just so counter intuitive and counter productive.

DreamRose311 | May 26, 10:22 CET

You can make all the excuses you want for the right wing. I'm not buying any of them any longer.

Rowan Hawthorn | May 26, 10:59 CET