They also said "Of course we started late..." and it's a sketch about how a Black version of Jeopardy would be inherently stupid not an intellectual pursuit.

So if you're going for reverse racism, I think you lose, if they're going for funny, I think they lose it wasn't all that funny.

Blocked for me too. Anyone got a mirror?

Edit: viewable here: http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2014/03/30/snl-black-jeopardy-video/

I'll go ahead and call "conspiracy" on this one.

Not that the guy cheated. I believe the reactions were genuine. But I'll call shenanigans on the producers.

The only real advertising to the "internet generation" these shows can garner are viral videos. Jeopardy has been leading the way. The demographic for these shows are older crowds, and with slipping ratings/advertising, they must muck for gold.

There's something waaaay too strange about the way the answer suddenly flashes on-screen. No usual stop in music, dinging, or reaction from anyone. It's as if the producers ad-libbed the contestant's answer to make an amazing video. To sell to us to watch.

Or... the guy at the switch was harumphing, arms crossed, laughing at this kid trying to answer such a tough puzzle. Then having an "oh shit' moment.

I don't know. There's definitely something... off about it all though.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Conan Obrien, edit, whataaaaapp, Jeopardy, alex trebek' to 'Conan Obrien, edit, wasaaaaapp, Jeopardy, alex trebek, insane, nonsense' - edited by lucky760

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Conan, Obrien, edit, whataaaaapp, Jeopardy' to 'Conan Obrien, edit, whataaaaapp, Jeopardy, alex trebek' - edited by xxovercastxx

So, the judge can't declare a mistrial if s/he suspects jury nullification? Like in the extreme case presented where jurors ignore DNA and video evidence and just decide to vote not guilty anyway? That's a little scary, especially considering the double-jeopardy rule.

I imagine if you were on a jury, convincing all the other members to nullify would be extremely difficult. It seems much more likely to result in a hung jury except in the most extreme cases (like the slavery and lynching examples provided in the video).

Also, in California at least, jury nullification has itself been "nullified"--judges can remove from the jury any member that indicates they will not give a verdict that corresponds to the facts of law involved in the case.

See: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/california-court-rules-against-jury-nullification

*promote the antmans's title, yes-Humanity next ya dumbshitz!

Plenty of Watson/Jeopardy offerings here on the sift but only one glaringly lucid title for a segment reminiscent of our near future as totally-fucked individuals...

Jeez, tough room. He's a Jeopardy contestant, he's not applying to be the next Rich Little. Calm down.

Your video, Jeopardy Contestant Answers Question with Bane Impression, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I watch Jeopardy every night and Carlos has been cracking me up with his facial acrobatics. He's like a cartoon character. He's on a winning streak too.

why the hell would this be FINAL Jeopardy material?! This is so clearly a round-2 question, in which the contestant has to pronounce it!
So lame.

'Jeopardy!' Contestant Penalized For 'Elaine' Pronunciation has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

You know what... This video has officially turned me against Jeopardy. I think one pronunciation came through the sift a while ago about Wheel of Fortune, and that one was extremely slim-pickins, but this is just bullshit. Wow.

I think if it were shot more recently, he would definitely include IBM's Watson Jeopardy-playing computer in the AI portion.

Ut oh, There are so many contradictions in your post. It honestly looks like you're starting to become unhinged. See this is why I quote your posts. I want you to be able to see what you say...makes it easier to spot those contradictions and makes it more certain that I am responding accurately.

It is strange though. It does appear that none of your arguments in your most recent post have anything to do with my recent response. You're making new arguments again without settling our original ones. I can only assume that means you're conceding my points.

You've asked me to prove your emotional manipulation due to your usage of "freedom" and "coercion" Oh...I'm sorry Ren, but you have missed it, but I already responded to that. Here, let me quote it for you:

"Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness."

There, I hope that clears things up amigo.

Ut oh, again, you referred to your original question. But Ren...I've responded to this numerous times? Did you forget? Here, let me quote those too:

"This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?"

and..

"You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you."

and...

"To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering. ""

and finally...

"I answered your question yet you continue to pretend otherwise. I showed you numerous examples of requirements before freedoms and rights are granted and no one is claiming they are less free because of them. You make the claim that people are less free because of gun control but you REPEATEDLY fail to demonstrate how other than to suggest we should be an anarchy. Who cares how many people suffer, they'll learn their lesson eventually right?? right?? Sorry, we tried anarchy, didn't work..we moved on. Just because you wrapped your claim in the form of a question doesn't mean shit other than you're really to play Jeopardy with Alex Trebek. You're still making a claim that people will be less responsible with less freedom. Its your claim, you need to prove it. I've said this before and you still haven't done it."

There. I'm really sorry, I thought you read all that already. That should clear it up. I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding it.

Unfortunately, you've contradicted yourself my friend. Earlier in your post, you admit there are no rules for us talking, but at the end of your post you put forth a rule for me...a dare..if you will. I don't think it's very fair that you don't have any rules, but I have to be...coerced into following your rules, do you?

If you do honestly think I'm a troll, I apologize, that certainly wasn't my intent, but you know, there is one rule that is known for dealing with trolls. Oh crap, my bad. You don't like rules, you think they take away your freedom, my bad.

I certainly hope that clears everything up buddy. Hopefully this does conclude our discussion. But then again, I thought we were done some time ago, but you kept bringing up different arguments and other distractions so I was compelled to correct your errors. HTH

PS. It is rather contradictory to accuse me of being juvenile, but you end your post with a dare. Oops! That must be so embarrassing for you!