On one hand it does perhaps lack imagination, but on the other it makes perfect sense that aliens we first find would be much like us since they'd be attracted by our radio waves, and to become a space traveling civilisation they'd likely have similar motivations and their brains/reasoning capabilities would have evolved in a similar way. Afterall the human brain seems to be hardwired to find other humans - we see faces in the clouds and random floor patterns etc.

That new movie Arrival (2016) (not the Charlie Sheen 90s one) did a great job of unique aliens.

I guess another reason why fiction makes aliens like us is so that it allows a story to be told without the story getting bogged down on the details (unless that is the focus of the story).

And that's exactly the reason I never liked the show, it's the same old, shitty stereotypes. This show masks its mocking of geeks and nerds by making them main characters and adding more detail to their interests.
Other than that, it's the same misogyny and lazy jokes that rely on the laughtrack to work at all that you can find in 'Two and a half men'. Yeah, Tigerblood Charlie Sheen was right, Chuck Lorre is a hack.

Before Charlie Sheen had tiger's blood, Tarantino was just being himself. The guy is wired!

Yes, it is good for the soul. I'm glad you believe that.

Actually, the first two comments were, paraphrasing here but, "Trump is horrible" and "Charlie Sheen is the voice of reason (and that's whack)".

Your interpretation is that I'm negative and mean. Pointing out truths or untruths, whilst often uncomfortable for many, is not negative or mean. It's not a new, an old, or any low at all. It is a neutral observation.

I've not posted more than one video because I don't see the need to. I only posted the first one to explore the mechanism involved in posting. I've got plenty of material posted by others to look at and comment on, and not nearly enough time in the day to do everything I'd like to do.

I'll tell you what I see as negative and mean. The constant degradation of other human beings because one doesn't agree with their politics. And that includes both Trump and Hillary.

Laughter is good for the soul.

Harlequinn, it's The Graham Norton Show, and a silly story Charlie Sheen told. I was surprised that Charlie Sheen is even being booked, because is he even relevant anymore? Then he tells this story. Perhaps to be more relevant.

No one said, "See, Trump is awful, and Charlie Sheen thinks so, it must be true!"

Why be negative and mean? Sinking to a new low...come on, really?
Why haven't you posted more than one video? Honestly curious, not being spiteful, but you must have your reasons.

Trump, and whether you can believe him or not, is not the point.

Showing confirmation bias and believing anecdotes from Charlie Sheen is the point I addressed.

My comment wasn't in the slightest pro-Trump.

It was definitely anti-confirmation bias. The target of the confirmation bias is irrelevant. Charlie Sheen could have been talking about Clinton and I would have written the same thing.

When you find yourself believing an unverified story by Charlie Sheen because it fits your confirmation bias, you know you've sunk to a new low.

Congratulations! Your comment on Donald Trump Gave Charlie Sheen Fake Platinum Cufflinks - Th has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, Donald Trump Gave Charlie Sheen Fake Platinum Cufflinks - Th, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

Lulz, great minds.

I was going to say "You know, when Charlie Sheen thinks YOU are a whack job..."

Your video, Donald Trump Gave Charlie Sheen Fake Platinum Cufflinks - Th, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

That was pretty funny.

I think she is getting better each round.

Milk milk lemonade was pretty sweet.

So was the movie.

Did you ever see her surprise pants everyone at Charlie Sheen's Roast

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'give money, TMZ, Ashton Kutcher' to 'give money, TMZ, Ashton Kutcher, Charlie Sheen, ALS, ice' - edited by Trancecoach