I couldn't help but think of this Kids In the Hall sketch.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Freedom-of-Speech-The-Kids-in-the-Hall

Pertaining to backlash for this sketch....

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-on-the-Gaza-Israeli-Conflict

I love Weird Al so very much and have since I was a child in the 80s. He's such a brilliant, funny guy and a great role model for young people.

And I just adore his humor:

Stuart: "When did you start?"
Weird Al: "What, this interview? About 5 minutes ago."

LMFAHS. Real-time sketch comedy.

*promote

[edit]
32-YEAR CONTRACT?! Say whaaat?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Zawash. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Red-Dwarf-The-Picture-Zoom-Enhance-Sketch

And how is it, everyone can come up with a DeLorean for these sketches? Aren't these things rare and expensive?

"Only 6,000 cars came off the assembly line at the DeLorean Motor Company factory in 1981, nearly 2,000 each year in 1982 and 1983. Sales were strong for the 1981 models, but sales dwindled in early 1982 and cars were stockpiled until DeLorean Motor Company went out of business later that year."

Hi, I'm a long time lurker. I happened to see an interesting 'Videosift lounge' -link in the top of the page yesterday, clicked it, and found out that the site has a chat lounge, which is quite nice!

I wound up chatting with @eric3579, and found out that the chat had been enabled for everyone just a few months ago. We got to talking about how hard it can be for a first time user to find out more information about what VideoSift is, and how it actually works.

I had seen this thread a couple of weeks ago, when I first time tried to find out some extra info on the site. I skimmed @Zawash's great post through for some info (on what power points can be used for etc.) - I didn't find the link to the FAQ then, I found the FAQ-link just today.. as it never occured to me to look for the link at the very bottom of the page, but from the top menu navigation bar instead.

I sketched that above linked image as we chatted, and now I just noticed that @dotdude had suggested just that idea already above. The sketch's question mark and font color is not as cool as the real design is, but in anycase, I too think that something of that sort would be more noticeable/clear place for FAQ/Help for the new people?

Do you guys think that to make this happen, we could perhaps cut the task in to two? One for the mighty Admins, and one for the helpful, interested parties in this talk thread? Admins would create cool graphics and code the link for the help menu, and the layout views for a sectioned help text, and then another task for all the long time pro sifters, in creating all that text for those help sections? A bit like @Zawash has done here?

Could that work be done in anonymous google document (does require Google-account (I think, maybe, note sure if it even requires that), but editing and commenting on the document doesn't reveal identity in any case)?

If there are helpful and knowledgeable people, perhaps this document could be used for the work of creating a good help section and updated FAQ?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hB-bGN9QJ0Wgu7_-jH22eHG3HYJ9_Oj4hG9EWsorNgE/edit?usp=sharing

I'm going to currently just copy all the material from the FAQ in there, and edit it to look nice and clear, and then separate 'Help/instructions' sort of stuff in to another section, and leave only actual basic Questions in the FAQ-section. Anyone's free to help and contribute! And if you come up with a better way of organizing everything, or want to write a completely new section, just use the document and do it!

I'm a total newb when it comes to anything related to actually using this site and its features (only submitted a couple of videos), so I think I'm underqualified for doing this by myself, so I sure hope you guys could help!

Just hop on in to the document and start doing useful stuff when ever!
Don't worry about accidentally doing anything, there's a complete undo feature in Google Docs, and each edit revision is saved as its own version, so if someone decides to vandalize (I heavily doubt anyone would do such a thing!) this, I can get the last good version back, and then put on restrictions on to who can edit etc. But, I'll do those things only if there is a need for that, let's keep the document super easily accessible and commentable for now!

Thanks!

(BTW. I really appreciate all the effort of the Admins and sifters have put in to the site over the years! I believe that there's quite a few other people besides me, who mostly just lurk around, and do not contribute much to the site actively.
That reluctance to participate might of course be due to us lurkers being like we are, but also it could heavily be related to the way in which it's a bit hard to find out about how stuff works currently..)

Now it's just funny to make homophobic jokes ironically. Like pretending to be Eric Cartman or similar sentiments. But actually witnessing childish homophobia... that's pretty weird to me nowadays, even among the people I know who don't necessarily approve of the lifestyle.

I wonder when/if our generation of offensive, abusive irony will dissipate? I don't mind it, but it seems like a natural progression for popular culture. For example, do you really hear "retard" jokes any longer? Was In Living Color the last mainstream sketch comedy with mentally challenged jokes?

I could be wrong on this, but I don't recall recent stuff along those lines -- except South Park, but they're very, very special.

Suey Park aside (she acts crazy), I personally believe many of you would be well served by thinking about this situation more critically before you jump on the defend Colbert bandwagon. Colbert is a funny satirist, but is not without flaw, and in my mind this bit on his show was at best a shitty joke and at worst completely unnecessarily racially insensitive (i.e. even as satire, it did not serve his point well). An article here talks about it in a more articulate way than I probably can:
http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/04/colbert-white-racial-satire-dont-need/

This is somewhat tangential (I'll tie things together later), but based on my readings it seems Chappelle may have grappled with whether some of his skits were having net positive social impact, especially near the tail end of the show's run. From Chappelle's wikipedia entry (way more context there) --- "Chappelle said that he felt some of his sketches were "socially irresponsible." ... "According to Chappelle, during the filming of the sketch, a white crew member was laughing in a way that made him feel uncomfortable and made him think. Chappelle said, "It was the first time I felt that someone was not laughing with me but laughing at me."
--- For me, coming from somebody like Chappelle, that's pretty heavy stuff. if Dave Chappelle -- IMO quite brilliant both comedically and otherwise, and has personal experience being an oppressed minority -- struggles with what makes good socially responsible satire, that probably means it's hard. Really hard. Yet there are many people far less qualified than Chappelle in the area of satire creation and firsthand experience of racial oppression using "Colbert is satire, don't you know what [good, socially responsible] satire is?" (I'll answer that rhetorical -- No I don't, nor do probably most people) as a bit of a rubber stamp for Colbert being totally justified in doing this bit.
In my opinion, if there were ever a time for Stephen to totally break character for a second and just say "I'm sorry. Satire can be very difficult at times and we make mistakes. This was one of them. We've got to try harder.", now would be the time. As Chappelle pointed out, some people could be comfortable in laughing for the wrong reasons and not realizing it ... those people need a bit of a reality check. As the person everybody is rushing to protect, Colbert would be the best one to deliver it. In doing so, this could even more powerfully (than his satire) make people come around to the idea that racism is not just a switch you can turn off and be done with it (a la Stephen Colbert the *character*), it's a constant maintenance process like brushing one's teeth ( a la Jay Smooth -- Great talk here by Jay on just this topic ). "Wait.... even Stephen Colbert (the person) satirist master extraordinaire needs to think about race issues!? Hmmmmmmm..."

The explosion at 2:29 was quite something - here's from Wikipedia:

The performance by The Who in 1967 was another defining moment in the series; as the group often did during that period, The Who destroyed their instruments at the conclusion of their performance of "My Generation", with the usual addition of mild explosives for light pyrotechnic effect. The piece would end with guitarist Pete Townshend grabbing Tommy's guitar and smashing it. On the Smothers Brothers show that night, a small amount of explosive was put into the small cannon that Keith Moon kept in his bass drum. But it didn't go off during the rehearsal. Unbeknownst to Moon, a stage hand had added another explosive before the taping, and later Moon added another charge so that now there were three explosive charges in the cannon instead of one.[9] When Moon detonated it, the explosion was so intense that a piece of cymbal shrapnel cut into Moon's arm; Moon is heard moaning in pain toward the end of the piece. Townshend, who had been in front of Moon's drums at the time, had his hair singed by the blast; he is seen putting out sparks in his hair before finishing the sketch with a visibly shocked Tommy Smothers. Allegedly, the blast contributed heavily to Townshend's long-term hearing loss.

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.

Thats what you came away with, and felt the need to point out, from this comedy sketch. I think your statement says more about you then anything else. Just sayin'