I didn't think anyone could be worse than Mark Ruffalo when it came to stuff like this. This tweet is offensive and disr
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Joss Whedon
abrady8103 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 03:51 PM)
I didn't think anyone could be worse than Mark Ruffalo when it came to stuff like this. This tweet is offensive and disrespectful on a multitude of levels!
Violence solves nothing. I want a rhino to fk @SpeakerRyan to death with its horn because it's FUNNY, not because he's a #GOPmurderbro
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/01/16/filmmaker-joss-whedon-goes-after-paul-ryan-with-profane-tweet.html
Both him and Ruffalo are now the reasons why I am happy that I sold my copy of
The Avengers
. What did Ryan ever due to him that made him act this way? He's probably never even met him. -
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 12:13 PM)
Agreed. I don't know when they are going to realize that if most people cared about their political opinions Hillary would be President.
Well, she did win the majority vote by a large margin, so most people did want her as president.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead. -
NVDan — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 09:53 PM)
She won by 2.9 million votes which is approximately 2% of the votes cast, hardly a large margin.
So in your mind because only 2.8 million more people voted for her than for President-elect Trump you can claim President-elect Trump received a majority of the vote?
Interesting.
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
-
Sliceanddice — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 03:07 PM)
The rules are the rules. You can't undermine the system simply because you didn't get the result you were after. If the election was determined on a 'first past the post' basis, Trump would have run his campaign accordingly and still have won, because Hillary was electoral poison. Shame on her for shafting Bernie.
-
NVDan — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 03:27 PM)
The rules are the rules. You can't undermine the system simply because you didn't get the result you were after. If the election was determined on a 'first past the post' basis, Trump would have run his campaign accordingly and still have won, because Hillary was electoral poison. Shame on her for shafting Bernie.
dilateyourmind had posted, "I don't know when they are going to realize that if most people cared about their political opinions Hillary would be President." When PreachCaleb pointed out that most people who voted for Hillary dilateyourmind responded with, "She won by 2.9 million votes which is approximately 2% of the votes cast, hardly a large margin."
I pointed out that her claim was most people voted for Trump. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion I was trying to "undermine the system" by doing that. I'd ask you to elaborate, but given your inability to follow this short exchange I don't have much hope for it being helpful.
But thanks for the information on how the electoral system works in the US. Perhaps you can follow up with a post about the wetness of water.
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
-
NVDan — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 08:54 PM)
No, I am claiming that 2% is not a large margin.
"I don't know when they are going to realize that
if most people cared
about their political opinions Hillary would be President." (
http://www.imdb.com/board/20923736/board/nest/265148129?d=265247418#265247418
)
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
-
dilateyourmind — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 05:09 AM)
I see, you are debating semantics. Ok, lets operate under the assumption that all 65,844,610 Clinton voters were on some level swayed to vote for her by Joss Whedon or another celebrity influence. Now lets factor in the 70,783,849 that either voted for Trump or a third party candidate. Or roughly 51.8% of the vote. If we add the 92,671,979 eligible voters who did not vote for any candidate we have nearly 60% of the voting population who were not swayed to vote for Clinton for any reason, including celebrity influence.
So I stand by my two points.- 2% is not a large margin.
- Most people do not care about Joss Whedon's or any other celebrity's political opinion.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way.
-
NVDan — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 10:04 AM)
I see, you are debating semantics.
It's funny how often someone will claim semantics are being debated when a quote from them shows they are wrong. And then you follow up with an actual semantics debate. How ironic.
I love the way you leaped to the conclusion that all the people who didn't vote "were not swayed to vote for Clinton for any reason". It's almost as if you don't realize that many states are so dominantly Republican or Democratic that a lot of people don't see any reason to vote.- 2% is not a large margin.
And yet, it's still almost 3,000,000 more voters who agreed with Joss Whedon than disagreed. - Most people do not care about Joss Whedon's or any other celebrity's political opinion.
It doesn't change the fact that most voters agreed with Joss Whedon.
By the way, since you want to debate semantics, by voters I mean people who actually voted, not people who were eligible to vote.
One final question. Do you go to the Scott Baio message board and tell people that since almost 3,000,0000 more people voted for Hillary Clinton nobody cared about his opinion or is that just for celebrities that you disagree with?
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
- 2% is not a large margin.
-
dilateyourmind — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 03:24 PM)
It's funny how often someone will claim semantics are being debated when a quote from them shows they are wrong. And then you follow up with an actual semantics debate. How ironic.
Actually I used numbers to show where my quote wasn't wrong. Even if you take away the eligible voters who didn't vote, the ones who did vote for Trump or one of the other candidates did so by a 1.8% margin. Admittedly not a large margin but still a larger margin.
It's almost as if you don't realize that many states are so dominantly Republican or Democratic that a lot of people don't see any reason to vote.
That was Clinton's mistake. She thought the "blue wall" was a sure thing. WI, MI, and PA all hadn't gone Republican since the 80's. She didn't campaign heavily there and hadn't even visited WI since the primary.
By the way, since you want to debate semantics, by voters I mean people who actually voted, not people who were eligible to vote.
Of the people who actually voted 65,844,610 voted for Clinton, 70,783,849 did not. By the way I did not want to debate semantics, I think if you scroll back you can easily see who originally engaged. I stated my opinion, you decided to try to point out where you felt it was wrong. Plus, if we are going to debate the semantics of my quote, then it is based on my meaning. I wrote "people" not "voters". So had he or any of the other celebrities been as influential as they hoped, at least a few of the nearly 93 million people who didn't vote would have been coerced off the couch. After all Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johannsson told us how important it was.
Do you go to the Scott Baio message board and tell people that since almost 3,000,0000 more people voted for Hillary Clinton nobody cared about his opinion or is that just for celebrities that you disagree with?
No I have not but not because I agree with him. I think even less people care about his opinion than Joss Whedon's. If he does tweet that he thinks it is funny for a rhino to rape anyone though I will be sure to visit his IMDb page.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way. -
NVDan — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 04:00 PM)
Actually I used numbers to show where my quote wasn't wrong.
The reality is you used self-serving assumptions to try to change what you originally meant so you wouldn't have to
admit
you were wrong.
That was Clinton's mistake.
No, that was your mistake in assuming people didn't vote because they weren't persuaded. Talking about Hillary Clinton doesn't change the fact that you were
wrong
in your assumption.
By the way I did not want to debate semantics, I think if you scroll back you can easily see who originally engaged.
That would be you who originally brought up semantics when all I did was post your original quote.
So had he or any of the other celebrities been as influential as they hoped, at least a few of the nearly 93 million people who didn't vote would have been coerced off the couch. After all Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johannsson told us how important it was.
And there you go again making that self-serving false assumption that people didn't vote because they weren't persuaded.
No I have not but not because I agree with him.
So your purpose in coming here was to attack Joss Whedon because you disagreed with his opinion?
If he does tweet that he thinks it is funny for a rhino to rape anyone though I will be sure to visit his IMDb page.
What about President Trump? Did you go to his IMDb page when the video came out about his saying that he gets away with grabbing women by the pussy because he's a celebrity? That seems a whole lot worse than a lame joke by Joss Whedon.
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
-
dilateyourmind — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 04:36 PM)
The reality is you used self-serving assumptions to try to change 5b4what you originally meant so you wouldn't have to admit you were wrong.
I used factual numbers.
No, that was your mistake in assuming people didn't vote because they weren't persuaded.
Had they been persuaded they would have voted. I am not talking all 93 million but at least a few million, enough to have made a difference. You know like the ones in WI, MI, and PA who voted Trump because he actually bothered to campaign to them.
That would be you who originally brought up semantics when all I did was post your original quote.
I brought up semantics because I realized that was the basis of your argument.
And there you go again making that self-serving false assumption that people didn't vote because they weren't persuaded.
And your self serving false assumption is that they didn't vote because they were persuaded?
What about President Trump?
I think you are laboring under the impression that I am a Trump fan. I detested the man at varying times as much as and even sometimes more than Clinton. I simply recognize he is President now and have chosen to hope for the best. Had Clinton won I would have done the same with her. Had Scott Baio gone on borderline psychotic twitter rant about Nancy Pelosi I would have visi16d0ted his IMDb page and no doubt joined in the chorus of anti Baio people there.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way. -
NVDan — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 08:49 AM)
I used factual numbers.
Along with self-serving false assumptions.
Of course, the real point is you're trying to use these "factual numbers" so you can pretend you meant something different than what you originally posted.
Had they been persuaded they would have voted.
Let's put that to the test. Let's pretend that it's November 1, 2016 and I'm supporter of President Trump living in California. I've decided that rather than go stand in line after work on election day I'm going to go to my favorite bar after work and have a few drinks with my friends. Persuade me to waste my time voting rather than enjoying myself.
I brought up semantics because I realized that was the basis of your argument.
My argument was nothing but a direct quote from you. Nothing about semantics in it. You brought up semantics because you realized you didn't have any other way of defending your own words.
And your self serving false assumption is that they didn't vote because they were persuaded?
I've posted nothing that comes anywhere close to saying that. Why are you trying to lie about my position?
I think you are laboring under the impression that I am a Trump fan.
Part of that impression comes from you saying in the context of the election, you agreed with Scott Baio. (
http://www.imdb.com/board/20923736/board/nest/265148129?d=265272606#265272606
)
I detested the man at varying times as much as and even sometimes more than Clinton. I simply recognize he is President now and have chosen to hope for the best. Had Clinton won I would have done the same with her. Had Scott Baio gone on borderline psychotic twitter rant about Nancy Pelosi I would have visited his IMDb page and no doubt joined in the chorus of anti Baio people there.
That's a long winded way of saying that you didn't go to President Trump's IMDb message board when the pussy grabbing video came out. Care to explain why you feel Joss Whedon's lame joke is worthy of you scorn but President Trump's claim that he can walk up and grab strange women by their pussy because he's a celebrity isn't?
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
-
dilat
b68
eyourmind — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 09:59 AM)Along with self-serving false assumptions.
My original post was:
I don't know when they are going to realize that if most people cared about their political opinions Hillary would be President.
You pointed out by highlighting my quote that most people did care because more people voted for her than Trump. I then pointed out that of eligible voters only 40% voted for Clinton. You then wrote that you were only concerned with people who actually voted. That had not been my point because I wrote "people" not "voters" but I conceded that and still amongst people who actually voted 4,939,239 more people voted for any other candidate than Clinton (including Vermin Supreme).
I might also point out that you are conflating "agrees with" and "cares about". I agreed with Joss Whedon and his myriad of celebrities that Trump would be a terrible President. That doesn't mean that I arrived at that opinion because I cared about their opinion. I formulated that opinion from the beginning of the primary by watching speeches and debates.
Persuade me to waste my time voting rather than enjoying myself.
You actually just proved my point. I was the one debating that most people didn't care about celebrity opinions and weren't persuaded to vote based on them. You didn't mention what you chose to do the 29 days prior to the election during California early voting rather than follow an order from celebs en masse. They said it was important. Remember?
You brought up semantics because you realized you didn't have any other way of defending your own words.
I have defended my words with factual numbers. Lets take a look at some more. lets say that Clinton had chosen to campaign heavily in states she thought were sewn up. She prioritized that above hanging out at concerts with Beyonc and Katy Perry. The "Blue Wall" as they call it carries 46 electoral votes. Had they gone blue as they have in the last 29-33 years that would h16d0ave left Clinton with 278 electoral votes and Trump with 260. In that scenario Clinton is President. In the reality where she pandered to celebrities and hoped average people cared she is not.
Part of that impression comes from you saying in the context of the election, you agreed with Scott Baio.
I wrote:
No I have not but
not
because I agree with him.
I don't agree with him. The most I know is that he was a Trump supporter and I was not. If there are other points I agree with him on I don't know. I don't follow him on Twitter. I do follow Joss Whedon because I am a fan of his work even though he is making it increasingly difficult to respect him as a person.
That's a long winded way of saying that you didn't go to President Trump's IMDb message board when the pussy grabbing video came out. Care to explain why you feel Joss Whedon's lame joke is worthy of you scorn but President Trump's claim that he can walk up and grab strange women by their pussy because he's a celebrity isn't?
First of all I don't consider what Whedon tweeted to be a "lame joke". I am pretty sure had he tweeted that about Hillary Clinton he would have been announcing shortly after he was entering rehab for sensitivity training and thrust into Mel Gibson land as far as his career goes.
Second you will see that up until recently my history on the IMDb forums has been rather sporadic. I was fighting cancer the last few months and prioritized that over getting in online debates.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way. -
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 06:11 AM)
That is a large margin considering Bush lost the popular vote by only 540,000, which was the largest amount up to that point.
Then Hillary wins it by 2.9 million votes.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead. -
dilateyourmind — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 07:33 PM)
It is a larger margin than in the past but it is still not a large margin. A large margin would be the 40% of eligible voters who did not vote at all.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way.