D'oh! Glad to be a part in supplying that schadenfreude.

Of course, O'keefe has already made his response to being caught, claiming it's not true and offering some incomprehensible evidence (like their operative being included in mass emails about the planned 'action', which he says they wouldn't have done if they knew he/she was a plant (unless they were trying to not let them know they knew he worked for Veritas so they could catch him offering money for crimes...duh)). I would bet one of your facebook people will come back with that reply...tell them it's bs, that the expose actually came out the day before the Veritas hit piece, not after, and the mental gymnastics Veritas is performing doesn't change a thing, they offered money for crime, recorded those they tried to hire verifying what they were being paid for, then edited it so it looks like they are suggesting those actions rather than what they were doing, verifying it's what Veritas was paying for.

I dunno, I think the performance has merits. It's not the feat itself but the presentation is tongue-in-cheek funny and enhances the schadenfreude stakes.

We're watching alternative comedy, really.

Schadenfreude blue balls.

You win again, schadenfreude.

I hate the franchise, but somehow enjoyed hearing about the long bumpy, spiteful road it took to get made. Schadenfreude, I guess.

boring?
I'll upvote the classic dialog:
Sister asks, "Why does it smell like gasoline?"
To which Roman replies, "Because we're at a gas station."

Also, maybe the video is like Schadenfreude, we're all expecting something to fail in a horrible way. Too bad it was just "so annoying" for the sisters, and nobody died. Too dark?

I kinda agree, but I think the point was to try to collect a mix of stuff so that even people with different senses of humor will be likely to laugh at at least one of them. That one targeted the "schadenfreude" people.

Schadenfreude has more to do with sadism than a lack of sympathy or of empathy.

Sure it does.
Schadenfreude and kindergarten

Both are in any English language dictionary.

Well, thank you for the compliment, fellow masterdebater.
Or did you mean "masturbator"? Then I'd have to disagree, I'm certainly not bad at that.

Yeah, my post was super hyperbolic but it was just a continuation of the thinking going on here. I took it to the next level. The basic message I took from this thread was "Fuck that guy, he's an insurance scammer and got what he deserved!"
I disagree.
First of all, his crime (scamming people out of money) makes him a huge asshole and definately someone I wish not much well being in general. However, he was slowly run over by a car! You have to do some really awful shit to deserve that kind of punishment. If that man was the pope, I'd have applauded the lady and asked her for a re-run because the pope supports child rapists. If that man was Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd ask if I could have a go. But he's, as far as we know, neither a rapist or murderer or anything else as horrible. He could be dead. He could be a vegetable. He could be disabled. None of that is a punishment fitting his crime. Not even a Bernie Madoff deserves that.
The second thing is this whole "he did something stupid and now he got what he deserves" debate. Look, I'm a person of schadenfreude. I have sadistic personality traits that fill my shrivelled, black heart with gleeful joy everytime somebody gets hurt. But there are limits.
My examples are horrible and gross but what sets them apart from what this guy did is mainly they're not criminal activities. Sure, if you shoot at cops and get shot, you deserve that. You committed and act of agression and got pwned. That man was not agressive towards anyone.
He didn't lay under a moving car, he lay beside a standing car that then rolled over him while making a turn because the driver didn't notice him. Misjudgement on his part? Sure. The same as playing russian roulette or shooting at cops? Nope. That's because his activity, running into a standing or slowly moving car and pretending to be hit, doesn't include certain death as certain possibility.
The only reason people here are so comfortable with this man getting run over is because he's an asshole criminal. If that would've happened to him while he was pulling an internet prank, everyone would be horrified. Imagine that guy wearing a ridiculous costume and talking into the camera at the beginning of the video how he'll make that woman think she hit him with the car and what a great prank that'll be. Is he still getting what he deserves?
People give a shit about the man in the terrible accident because they made a judgement that he is a criminal and not worth it.
See, John Oliver has a point when talking about prisons.
I saw a video of a man getting run over. It didn't upset me but the reactions to it did.

That's odd. I thought a conversation through comments where my position was explained clearly, then yours was WAS a discussion....what do you call it?
I'm still waiting for that one example where the 'joke' is at no one and nothing's expense.
Explain why an object can't be the object of ridicule...or a fictional character.
You didn't read...I wrote it's at the expense of the stick, being compared to a turd, AND the reader/listener, who can't tell the difference.
What's black and white and eats like a horse IS a riddle, just a bad one. Explain how it's not if you don't think it is. If you didn't understand my explanation, that's not the same as me not offering one. Read again please.
Because you are complicit in fooling yourself does not make you less the fool. I say you ARE laughing at your own expense, at your foolishness for being misled (so easily, even intentionally by yourself).
Magic isn't shadenfreude, but laughing at the bad magician is. Clowning is ALL about shadenfreude.
Wow, you are bending over backwards there...you ARE certainly laughing at the expense of the clown...because he wants it that way. It's still laughing at his looking the fool. Because he accepts the expense (of being foolish) doesn't mean it does not exist. You're arguing ridiculous semantics and missing the point.
I have still not seen anything that doesn't meet my definition, things that make you laugh are at something's expense (even if that thing accepts the expense freely). You may not see it, but I think that's because you won't analyze it beyond the surface.
I did say essentially that, read again please.... I said "As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )" Your lack of empathy for other's points of view does not make it less so to me, and you have yet to convince me otherwise. I even gave a popular reference for that way of thinking, 'stranger in a strange land'.
When I first read the stick 'joke', I laughed at MYSELF for being duped...same with ET...I laughed at the mathematician poking himself in the asshole (in my mind) and myself for the thought. In the final analysis, the joke was on ME for most of those 'jokes'...and I'm fine with that, not offended, that was not what I said. I said the joke is at "x's" expense, sometimes that "X" is the listener. EDIT: sometimes the expense is infinitesimal and barely or not noticed.
Wow, you really don't understand humor? It was a joke, at your and my expense, about your statement "I'm so confused by your request for proof that i feel like someone's asked me "Air? What air? There's no air, i can't see any!"" That would make sense if the asker was under water, no? It was meant to show why someone might say that, and how the misunderstanding could be on either side of the 'joke'. Too 'deep'?
EDIT: And why you gotta talk crap about my face?!? I can't help how I look!
(have you somehow convinced yourself that your comments weren't snide?)

Name it. Or try reading Stranger in a strange land for a better explanation of my point.
When analyzed thoroughly, all humor is at someone, or something's expense. I've never seen an exception...but I'm open to one if you have it!
EDIT: As I see it, all humor is schadenfreude (enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone (or something) else. )

it's the power that kills.
but it's the schadenfreude that gets the upvotes.

I think the word you're looking for is schadenfreude, but I see what you did there.. a little Fordian slip.