MovieChat Forums > Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997) Discussion > wtf is going on with joss on twitter?!

wtf is going on with joss on twitter?!

posted 8 years ago by ifnothingwedomatters
57 replies | jump to latest

I get that he's not happy with the situation in America (understandably so), but his ramblings about rhinos killing someone he doesn't agree with, or the picture of nicole kidman being compared to a puppet are beneath him.
(Ik it's supposed to be a joke, but it's neither funny nor appropriate in that context, which makes it all just uncomfortable)

Seriously, get your *beep* together, joss. Please.

Ps. I still cherish your work. as a producer and as a feminist you've done great work, so please, just, recover... or something...

[–] Kain_Templeman 8 years ago

I get that he's not happy with the situation in America (understandably so), but his ramblings about rhinos killing someone he doesn't agree with, or the picture of nicole kidman being compared to a puppet are beneath him.

Not really.

Joss has always been a petty douche bag.

It's only now that his fanbase has finally witnessed it for themselves.

[–] perfect_lover2012 8 years ago

Yep!

"When life gives you lemons"
Jessica D: sleep with their fathers and have secret lemon children

[–] userrrrr 8 years ago

yeah i am a fan of his works but as a person, he is a 💩kicker. i would love to work with him cause you seem to get a decent career after working wtih him and putting forth proper effort and not messing around on set.
he uses people, to put it simply. that's what user says.

🐙

[–] DebLovesBeccy 8 years ago

Joss has always been a petty douche bag.

Really? I talked to some people who met Joss back when he was doing 'Buffy' and they said he was a really friendly guy and was grateful for the success of the show so unless they met him on one of his good days it is possible his fame might have just gone to his head in later years.

_____________________________

They say I'm gifted, uh huh
Well I'm a certified prodigy
I'm gonna own you, uh huh
I'm gonna bring you to your knees

I always tell you how smart you are
It's cause my brain is really supersized
You're an academic superstar
Just look at me

I'm a leader, I'm a winner, and I'm cleaner
'Cause I'm awesome
I don't need you 'cause I'm neato and I beat you
'Cause I'm awesome

[–] Madison_CFK 8 years ago

I think he's drunk.

Remember kids, don't drink and tweet

[–] The_Stranggler 8 years ago

Like most in Hollywood out touch with the public and thinking the end was near because a republican took office.

[–] SenoritaTorres 8 years ago

He's probably just annoyed that so many steps have been taken in the last 8 years to ensure gender and LBGT equality and now one misogynistic, sexist prick is likely going to do his best to erase it all.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

He's probably just annoyed that so many steps have been taken in the last 8 years to ensure gender and LBGT equality and now one misogynistic, sexist prick is likely going to do his best to erase it all.

Bingo.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

He's probably just annoyed that so many steps have been taken in the last 8 years to ensure gender and LBGT equality and now one misogynistic, sexist prick is likely going to do his best to erase it all.

I have no idea why you think he's going to erase all that. I don't think they are issues he or most of his supporters care about.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

He's already signed legislation to start defunding Planned Parenthood International. And it's only been four days since he took over.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

And how is that erasing "gender and LGBT equality"?

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Seriously? You don't know how cutting off healthcare for women is erasing equality?

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

So the US does still fund reproductive health services to heterosexual men around the world?

EDITED

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Men make up about 10% of Planned Parenthood's customers. So, yes. The answer is yes.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

No, that does not answer my question. It only makes clear that the US doesn't fund the reproductive health services for those 10% of men anymore either. I'm asking, now that the US government won't fund International Planned Parenthood anymore, if the US does still fund reproductive health services to heterosexual men around the world?

Excuse me for the typo in my previous post.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Not anymore it doesn't. Trump signed to defund International Planned Parenthood.

Many women (and men) now have lost affordable reproductive health care. Sadly, it'll be women most affected.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Well, again, how does it erase "gender and LGBT equality"? It's not like heterosexual men around the world WILL have access to affordable reproductive health care. Ofcourse women will be most affected, but that's because those programs are mostly aimed at women, pretty much everywhere in the world.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Planned Parenthood is not just for straight, cis people.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

No, it's for men and women, straight, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc. That's my point. How does Trump's order erase "gender and LGBT equality"?

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Because it's primarily for women, as you said.

So a lot of those women (gay and straight and transgender) now don't have access to health care. So yes, it affects their ability to get affordable healthcare because they can't afford other options. That's how it affects equality. Because he's defunding something people relied on for care. Now some people no longer have access to what many others do.

Also, I didn't say it erased it. It's not gone. I said, he's started it. We're at the beginning stages of him messing with things that affect people.

Heck, it was one of his first acts. Not homeland security. Not the budget.

Taking away women's healthcare. That's what he was in a hurry to accomplish.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

It's reproductive healthcare, though, not general healthcare. But nothing is taken away that is still given to men. Good or bad, it has nothing to do with "gender or LGBT equality".

You didn't say "erase", but the person I responded to did.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

But nothing is taken away that is still given to men.

That's irrelevant. It's hitting women the most. So it's affecting their ability to get adequate affordable healthcare. Imagine if he shut down hospitals that mostly treated blacks. It'd be crazy to say nothing is taken away that is still given to whites.

So yes, shutting down something that affects women (lesbians and transgender included) has everything to do with LGBT equality.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

It is relevant because it shows that there's no "inequality" between men and women, or heterosexuals and homosexuals. The US funds just as little reproductive healthcare for each of them. It just happens to be that women make more use of it. But men do not have more easy access to reproductive healthcare.

But is this what the other poster was talking about? I don't know, I'd like to hear it from them.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

There is inequality.

This is about a service that mostly caters to women's health being defunded. That's a blow because those women can't afford other types of healthcare. So yes, not having access to healthcare is inequality. In this case, against women.

If someone takes something from you that you use, it would unacceptable for them to say, well, I didn't give it to that other person, so you guys are equal (even though that other person didn't use what was taken from you).

It's irrelevant whether men are being given extra care over women. The fact is this is hurting women specifically. Hence the inequality. When you hurt someone, that's inequality. Regardless of whether you help another person.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Equality is about having equal rights and in this case the rights for everybody are the same.

So yes, not having access to healthcare is inequality. In this case, against women.

Inequality when compared to whom? The men don't have any access either.

If someone takes something from you that you use, it would unacceptable for them to say, well, I didn't give it to that other person, so you guys are equal (even though that other person didn't use what was taken from you).

There are also women who don't make use of it either, just like a larger group of men. This inequality does not affect them. One may find it unacceptable that something they need is taken away, but that doesn't mean there's inequality.

But, you know, I'm still wondering what the other poster meant.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Please stop trying to make this about men. We're discussing women's issues.

Is the problem that there's not Planned Parenthood for men? That's irrelevant. Taking something away from someone sets back equality. Healthcare is part of it.

Inequality when compared to whom? The men don't have any access either.

It's not about men. We're not comparing men's issues to women's issues.

There are also women who don't make use of it either, just like a larger group of men. This inequality does not affect them. One may find it unacceptable that something they need is taken away, but that doesn't mean there's inequality.

This isn't about who isn't affected. Whites weren't affected by Jim Crow laws or segregation. They were still unequal.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Ofcourse this is about men, the issue was "gender equality". So I'm asking how this move makes women unequal to men when reproductive healthcare is not being funded for anyone.

This isn't about who isn't affected. Whites weren't affected by Jim Crow laws or segregation. They were still unequal.

I would rather say that black people were unequal to white people. But the big difference is that those laws specifically targeted black people. In this case women are not targeted, it's just that most customers happen to be women. Maybe most happen to be brunettes, that doesn't mean brunettes are unequal to blondes.

[–] drmokedweed123 8 years ago

The funny thing is, birth control is around 25-50 bucks a month without insurance. They complain about not getting it for FREE (entitlement) when they'll go spend 200 dollars easy on a hair/nail appointment.

If you honestly can't afford that you should probably refrain from doing something that could end up costing you a lot more. If I'm on foodstamps I'm not going to go to a steakhouse every night of the week and then complain I ran out early and demand more. At some point we have to acknowledge the extreme lack of personal responsibility and the entitlement issues.

Condoms more or less actually cost more money a month than birth control. Yet you do not see us demanding they be covered. Ironically it's more logical to cover condoms for the simple fact it prevents STDs. Let's also mention chances are extremely likely if you're taking birth control you're having sex. That person will most likely pay half just to avoid from having to wear condoms.

No one is saying women shouldn't have them (except a small minority). I just don't want to pay for something that is a choice. By all means take birth control, have 20 abortions. Just don't make me pay for it.

Let's also mention more money is dumped into women's healthcare than mens. Despite living longer than men and men suffering from more illnesses. Hmm. If anything healthcare has a gender bias against men.

[–] stargazer_1682 8 years ago

The funny thing is, birth control is around 25-50 bucks a month without insurance. They complain about not getting it for FREE (entitlement) when they'll go spend 200 dollars easy on a hair/nail appointment.

You are profoundly stupid.

[–] drmokedweed123 8 years ago

Your choices in TV shows must have rotted your brain. Even women in the low income bracket spends money they shouldn't on beauty supplies (mainly to leech off of men). The beauty industry is a multi billion dollar industry. The price range of birth control is correct as well. You were just too stupid and irrational to see the point I was making. Of course with most stupid people all you can do is instantly resort to an attack without actually having anything intelligent to say.

So far I'm right and you are unable to prove me wrong. You lost the second you typed. You are profoundly stupid..

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Whoa.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

It doesn't concern men. They're not affected by this as you've pointed out. I get what you're trying to say. But equality does not mean exact same. If it did, we'd all have the same height, gender, and skin color.

In this case women are not targeted, it's just that most customers happen to be women.

Bingo. Not to mention Trump and his supporters have specifically said it's to target abortion. And that only affects the women. So it is targeted towards women.

Maybe most happen to be brunettes, that doesn't mean brunettes are unequal to blondes.

Hair color is not a protected status.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

It doesn't concern men. They're not affected by this as you've pointed out. I get what you're trying to say. But equality does not mean exact same. If it did, we'd all have the same height, gender, and skin color.

It does concern men since we're discussing "gender equality". It's about the equality between men and women. "Gender and LGBT equality" means the same rights for men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals. And in this case the US won't fund international reproductive healthcare for anyone. As you pointed out, this order will also affect men, even if they're only 10%.

Bingo. Not to mention Trump and his supporters have specifically said it's to target abortion. And that only affects the women. So it is targeted towards women.

Yes, abortion, not women. It certainly only affects a small portion of women. It just happens to be that women are the only ones who can undergo an abortion. And I'm sure that many of these women have husbands who are also affected.

Protected status (or a lack of) does not indicate when someone's being treated unequal or not.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

"Gender and LGBT equality" means the same rights for men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals.

That's only part. It also means not targeting one group. Defunding planned parenthood targets women, as they are the majority of the customers who need those services. Whether men are affected is irrelevant. Women are the ones being hit.

Like I said, shutting down a service that mostly caters to African Americans would be unequal, even if it's a service whites don't use or whites don't have.

Equality doesn't mean some zero sum game where no one can have something if everybody doesn't also use it. It's not about, you can't have something if don't use it. Especially when it comes to health care.

As you pointed out, this order will also affect men, even if they're only 10%.

Irrelevant. As I also pointed out, they're targeting abortion. Strictly a woman's issue. Sadly, those men are caught in the wake. But it's women that are being targeted. That's inequality.

It just happens to be that women are the only ones who can undergo an abortion.

Bingo. And Trump and his supporters know that. They are purposefully targeting a service only women use. They are taking away women's right to choose what they do with their bodies. And in this, they've hit lesbian and transgender women as well.

Protected status (or a lack of) does not indicate when someone's being treated unequal or not.

Taking away services provided to a protected status does.

And I'm sure that many of these women have husbands who are also affected.

I'm sure there are plenty who don't have a husband. Irrelevant. It's not their body. Again, we don't need to worry about men when discussing women's issues.

If we were discussing male circumcision, I wouldn't worry how it affects women.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Equality is about having the same rights. The US is not funding international reproductive services for ANYONE. There is no gender inequality.

Bingo. And Trump and his supporters know that. They are purposefully targeting a service only women use. They are taking away women's right to choose what they do with their bodies

No, they are targeting orginizations that provide abortions. If men were the ones having babies and abortions, they would be the ones affected. I would also like to point out that this concerns healthcare services provided in foreign countries, the US can't give or take any rights to or from these people.

Taking away services provided to a protected status does.

I'm sorry, who exactly says that when someone from a protected class is affected by a action that's directed at all classes, it means they're being treated unequally? I'm sure there are activist groups who claim that, but that doesn't mean they're right. But is there actually a law that protects pregnant women against executive orders like this, even when it concerns foreign citizens?

If we were discussing male circumcision, I wouldn't worry how it affects women.

We're actually discussing "gender and LGBT equality" and if your example only concerned MALE circumcision, you'd have a point.

[–] blondiebear_17 8 years ago

Not its definitely the candidate that is the problem sure hollywood is liberal as *beep* but I have no idea why anyone would want Trump as president or respect anyone who voted for him.

[–] Nike316 8 years ago

Agreed. I don't think they would be so up in arms, if someone like Ted Cruz was the President instead.

[–] poem 8 years ago

Try Jeb Bush.

Ted Cruz might even be worse than Trump.

---
A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

[–] blondiebear_17 8 years ago

Jeb seemed pretty decent.

[–] messiah1012 8 years ago

Even though I love Joss' work, I honestly don't understand half of his tweets. I just ignore it and take it with a grain of salt, unless he tweets something good.

Also, you all don't need to follow him if his ramblings bother you.

[–] userrrrr 8 years ago

he's not the kindly cuddly care bear you believe him to be.

🐙

[–] Toadman005 8 years ago

He's always been a self righteous, judgmental ass hat, especially politically.

You must separate someone's art/work from their personality. I like Whedon's work (mostly), but he is quite unlikable.

Say, do you hear that? It's the sound of the Reaper.....

[–] poem 8 years ago

A lot of people that I usually like - Michael Moore, Joss Whedon, Paul Krugman etc - are acting like really poor losers right now.

But IMHO Clinton was an absolutely horrible candidate. She already promised us to accelerate the small world war in Syria by installing a no fly zone. That would mean US american forces and russian forces would be in direct conflict ! I cannot see how anyone sane would want this to happen. Well OK there is nothing sane about the war in Syria in the first place anyway, but you know what I mean.

So I dont really feel sad that she has lost. Partially I was even relieved she didnt win. Obviously Trump aint so great a president either. But at least he didnt promised us world war.

---
A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

[–] GreyHunter 8 years ago

A lot of people that I usually like - Michael Moore, Joss Whedon, Paul Krugman etc - are acting like really poor losers right now.

Is this a joke? It's not about winning and losing. It's about having a sociopath as the most powerful person in the world. This isn't a dodgeball game. This is real life affecting real people who are capable of real suffering that other people don't give a damn about inflicting. Talking about winning and losing and characterizing people who aren't happy with someone like Trump in charge as being poor losers is profoundly clueless. Not just a little clueless. Absolutely and dangerously clueless.

[–] poem 8 years ago

As I already explained, Clinton was no better candidate than Trump.

And the vast majority of complaints about Trump already happened under Bill Clinton. Clinton already made the first wall to Mexico. He stopped paying unemployed people after five years. He already had a huge scheme to reduce official numbers of unemployed. He deregulated the banks. He started NAFTA, the frist of these "free trade agreements" which are not about free trade, but about unlimited capitalism, making the rich more rich and the poor more poor. Etc etc etc.

You hate Trump ? So - why do you like Clinton ? If you look behind appearances and check out what these people actually did and do - thats all the same *beep*

Heck, Trump even stopped TPP. I know there will probably be a billion things he will do that are negative, but this isnt a bad start. I hope TTIP will follow and NAFTA already doesnt look so good either.

---
A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.

[–] rereboy-903-525228 8 years ago

Trump is trying to stop climate policies. That's a checkmate to me.

Besides that, he is such a man-child that he stills wants to "investigate" voter fraud just because he didn't get the popular vote, despite winning.

Also, Clinton = world war? I don't think so. She wasn't a good candidate but Clinton is a career politician and she's not crazy. She might push for a harder stance on Russia and Syria with abstract notions of trying to implement no fly zones but she wouldn't escalate it to any significant actual war with Russia. Imo, of the two candidates, the only one that should make people fearful of a big war due to his actions is Trump because he is one who is crazy enough.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

Sadly, that's the crux of this. Trump is a petulant man-child. I've never seen a president with such thin skin.

In his first meeting with the CIA, he touts about how he really did have a large audience. Rather than discussing real issues, homeland security, cyber security, terrorism, he's trying to brag about his ratings. Yikes.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

He's almost like a BtVS/Angel villain.

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

[–] maxpierreburke 8 years ago

If you don't find it funny, Unfollow him...

[–] Toadman005 8 years ago

This thread degenerated about as expected.

Say, do you hear that? It's the sound of the Reaper.....

[–] raidersedge 8 years ago

Yeah Joss is a mess right now. Pretty sad.